See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335241009

Urea molasses multinutrient blocks technology

Book · August 2007

CITATIONS READS

2 3,341

4 authors, including:

Md. Abdus Samad Khan Md Reaz Uddin Chowdhury

Bangladesh Agricultural University Abdul Malek Ukil Medical College,Noakhali Bangladesh
85 PUBLICATIONS 358 CITATIONS 29 PUBLICATIONS 35 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A case report of nosocomial infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a one year old meningoencephalitis patient in a tertiary hospital of Bangladesh
View project

Effect of Different Hygienic Condition During Milking on Bacterial Count of Cows’ Milk View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Md. Abdus Samad Khan on 02 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 59

Experiences with urea-

molasses multinutrient
blocks in buffalo production
and reproduction in
smallholder dairy farming,
Punjab, India
P S Brar6 and A S Nanda1

Introduction
Dairy farming plays an important role in the economic development of
rural India, and about 80 percent of the trade in this sector is in the hands
of small-scale and marginal farmers having 1 to 20 animals each. The ever-
increasing shortage of good quality feed and green fodder is one of the
major factors limiting profitable dairy farming. Green fodder deficiency
increased from 29 percent in 1970 to 32 percent in 2000. In contrast, India
produces about 360 million tons of agricultural by-products, which have
poor digestibility and little nutritive value without further processing. To
put these into effective use there is thus a need to improve their nutritive
value.
Use of urea as a non-conventional source of non-protein nitrogen
for ruminal micro-organisms is well known. In India, urea has been fed
to cows and buffaloes in the form of uromol (Chopra et al., 1974), urea-
molasses liquid supplement (Kaur, 1993) and urea-treated straw (Bakshi,
Gupta and Langer, 1986). However, the labour and other costs involved in
the preservation, transport and feeding of the end product made some of
these methods unpopular and precluded their wider adoption by farmers.
Urea-molasses multinutrient blocks (UMMB) are relatively free from these
constraints, have the merit of providing nitrogen over a longer period of
time than any other urea source, and are generally more widely accepted.
This paper considers the development, adoption, merits and limitations of

6 .Department of Animal Reproduction, Gynaecology & Obstetrics, Punjab Agricultural

University, Ludhiana-141004, India.
E-mail: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
60 Experiences with urea-molasses blocks in buffalo production

UMMB technology in India. The focus is on the “cold process’ of UMMB

preparation, and its application in boosting production and reproduction
in dairy buffaloes in Punjab, India.

Formulation and Preparation of UMMB

UMMB use in India dates back to its introduction in 1983 by the National
Dairy Development Board (NDDB), Anand. Initially, it was produced by
a “hot process’, using various formulations, equipment and procedures
(Ahuja, Makkar and Kakkar, 1986; Gupta and Malik, 1991; Malik, Makkar
and Kakkar, 1993; Garg, Mehta and Singh, 1998). Despite the reasonably
evident scientific merits of UMMB application from the above studies,
the technology did not match the requirements of farmers and its use
remained limited to scientific and teaching institutes. The high initial costs,
cumbersome procedures, significant labour requirements and poor cost–
benefit ratio rendered it an unpopular proposition for field-level adoption.
Subsequently, the “cold process’ for UMMB preparation was introduced
(Tripathi,1997; Garg, Mehta and Singh, 1998), and later modified to be
a sustainable, cost-effective and overwhelmingly acceptable procedure,
especially for smallholder dairy farmers (Brar and Nanda, 2002, 2003). This
later process has the advantages of being simple, inexpensive and easily
adopted by farmers.

Comparative evaluation of the “hot” and “cold”

processes for UMMB preparation
For some time, controversy prevailed vis-à-vis the usefulness of the two
procedures for UMMB production, which warranted their comparative
assessment. The authors’ laboratory undertook studies on the comparative
merits and demerits of both UMMB preparation procedures, from the point
of view of their usefulness under smallholder farming system conditions
in India.
UMMB preparation by the cold process
Five formulations (I–V) were tested for the production of blocks using
locally-available agro-industrial by-products in Punjab, India (Table 1).
Urea was added to molasses, stirred and left standing overnight. Next
morning, the rest of the ingredients were mixed together on a polythene
sheet or in an iron pan. To obtain a uniform distribution in the whole
premix, common salt, being the smaller quantity, was mixed with the
cement, before mixing with the other dry ingredients. The urea-molasses
mixture was poured into this premix and mixed thoroughly by hand or with
a spade (for larger quantities). A known amount of this semi-solid mixture
(1.0 or 2.0 kg) was put in an iron frame (9×3×3 in (23×8×8 cm); Figure 5.1),
covered with a wooden sheet tightly fitting the frame and pressed for
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 61

20–30 seconds using the foot pressure of one person (Figure 5.2). The
iron frame was then removed, leaving a UMMB block on the polythene
sheet. These frames are simple to construct, are used routinely for making
earthen bricks, and readily available in the local market. The blocks were
left at room temperature to air-dry so as to be hard enough for handling,
transport and feeding. The time taken to harden off and other physical
characteristics of these blocks are shown in Table 5.2.

Table 5.1
Formulations used for preparing UMMB (percentage by weight).
Ingredients Formulation
(on a percentage basis) I II III IV V
Molasses 40 40 35 35 35
Urea 10 10 10 10 10
De-oiled rice bran – 26 – 33 17
Oiled rice bran 26 – 33 – 16
Ground-nut cake 10 10 10 10 10
Common salt 4 4 2 2 2
Cement 10 10 10 10 10

Table 5.2
Physical characteristics of UMMBs prepared by the cold process(1)
Formulation
Characteristics
I II III IV V(2)
Hardness + + +++ +++ +++
Days to dry at ambient – – 8–10 2–4 3–6
temperature(3)
Brittleness – – + ++ +
Cost (Rs./Kg) – – 4.22 4.02 4.11
Acceptability to animals Not tried Not tried 100% 100% 100%
NOTES: (1) The blocks were prepared during September–October (average daily room
temperature = 20–24°C; humidity = 60–70%). (2) Easy to prepare, as it does not stick to
pans. (3) The blocks took a little longer to harden on cloudy days with high humidity.

Blocks from formulations I and II, with 40 percent molasses, were too
soft to retain their block shape. The blocks prepared from formulations
III, IV and V were acceptably hard, although a variable number of days
were required for them to reach the desired hardness. The blocks from
formulation IV (33 percent de-oiled rice bran) were relatively more brittle
and had a high breakage percentage during transport, leading to wastage,
while the blocks from formulation III (33 percent oiled rice bran) were
sticky, difficult to prepare and took longer to harden off. Blocks from
formulation V, with 16 percent oiled and 17 percent de-oiled rice bran,
were relatively easier to prepare, sufficiently hard, less brittle and required
only a moderate time (3–5 days) to harden. Blocks weighing one kilogram
had a greater tendency to break than the two-kilogram blocks, so the latter
were chosen for further studies and dissemination.
62 Experiences with urea-molasses blocks in buffalo production

Figure 5.1 Metal mould used to produce UMMBs.

Figure 5.2 Compressing mixture into mould using foot pressure.

Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 63

UMMB preparation by the hot process

Blocks were prepared using the process of Malik, Makkar and Kakker (1993),
using the same five formulations as used in the cold process (Table 5.1).
Urea and molasses were mixed together in an iron pan and heated for half
an hour while being stirred slowly. Once hot, other ingredients were added
and mixed thoroughly. Blocks were prepared by forming this mixture
using a hydraulic press. The blocks produced using formulations III, IV
and V had the required texture and animal acceptability. However, this
method involves heating the ingredients, is labour intensive, takes a longer
time and needs costly equipment, such as a hydraulic press. Further, the
blocks so produced have been reported to be highly hygroscopic, leading
to poor shelf life (Tripathi, 1997; Garg, Mehta and Singh, 1998). As the
feed block technology was also being investigated for easy and reliable
drug administration for several animal health conditions, the hot method
might not be appropriate as it might adversely affect some of the active
ingredients. Although the method was adopted by a few commercial firms,
the high costs of equipment, infrastructure, additional energy required for
heating, and cumbersome procedure militated against its acceptance by
small-scale farmers. It could not be extended to the rural masses that own
about 75 percent of the dairy buffaloes and contribute about 60 percent
of the total milk in the state. The hot process was therefore dropped from
further studies on nutrient blocks in the authors’ laboratory.
The cold process had the merits of saving time, energy, labour and
overall costs in comparison with the hot process. Due to the lower cost, good
characteristics of the blocks produced, convenience of their preparation
and use in the field, and excellent acceptability in the preliminary trials,
this process was selected for further studies at the farmer level.

Nutritive value and block storage quality

The nutritive value (see Table 5.3 for proximate analysis) and keeping
quality (shelf life) of formulations III, IV and V were observed over a
period of 14 months. The nutritive value in terms of crude protein, neutral
detergent fibre, cellulose, ether extract and ash were similar in all the
formulations tested and did not vary much during storage (Table 5.3).
Marginal differences in components, if any, could be the effect of the type
and quantity of ingredients used by different workers (Kakkar and Makkar,
1995; Chauhan et al., 1997). Further, no deterioration in colour, odour or
texture was observed in storage, nor any apparent contamination with
mould. Of the several lots of the blocks produced, only one lot developed
surface mould within one month of storage. This could be due to improper
drying or high water content, or both, or prior contamination of the
molasses used. Malik, Makkar and Kakkar (1993) had suggested wrapping
blocks in polythene sheets to avoid moisture contamination, especially
64 Experiences with urea-molasses blocks in buffalo production

during the rainy season. Based on these observations, it was inferred that
the UMMB so prepared could be preserved in a dry environment at room
temperature for a reasonable period.
Table 5.3
Proximate analysis of fresh and stored UMMB prepared using formulations III, IV
and V (percentage of dry matter)
Freshly prepared
14-month-old UMMB
Components UMMB
III IV V III IV V

Dry Matter (percent of 85.0 84.0 86.5 84.4 81.8 83.5

UMMB)
Crude Protein 42.4 43.0 41.8 40.9 40.8 41.3
Neutral Detergent Fibre 26.7 25.9 26.5 26.0 26.0 27.0
Acid Detergent Fibre – – – 21.0 14.5 17.5
Cellulose 3.6 6.4 4.1 5.0 7.0 5.5
Ether extract 1.4 0.5 0.8 2.5 0.5 1.0
Ash 28.3 26.4 27.5 35.1 22.8 26.5

Acceptance of the blocks by buffaloes

All the animals offered UMMBs accepted them readily. In the first week
of the trial, more buffaloes (46 percent) tended to bite the blocks, but
this decreased to 26 percent in the second and to about 5 percent in the
third and fourth weeks of supplementation. The daily average UMMB
consumption by each animal was calculated to be 627 ±34 g. In earlier
studies, where bentonite was used as a binder, adult cows and buffaloes
consumed 400–500 g of UMMB (Makkar and Saijpaul, 1996). The use of
cement as a binder in the present study did not affect the intake of the
blocks. The intake of UMMB also depended upon the basic diet being fed
to the animals, and the quality and texture of the blocks. Calves kept on
lower amounts of concentrate consumed more UMMB (695 vs 559 g/day;
Kakkar, Malik and Makkar, 1997).

Studies on the Effect of UMMB Supplementary

Feeding – Field trials
Several field studies were undertaken on boosting reproductive performance
and milk production through UMMB supplementary feeding in buffaloes.
Effect of UMMB supplementation on reproduction
An efficient reproductive process is a prerequisite for profitable dairy
farming. However, delayed onset of postpartum ovarian activity (90–180
days) and high incidence of deep anoestrus, especially during summer
(50–75 percent) lead to prolonged inter-calving intervals (15–25 months)
in Indian dairy cows and buffaloes, causing huge economic losses to the
Indian dairy industry. The major limiting factor is a lack of sufficient good
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 65

quality feed and fodder, coupled with the limited purchase capacity of
smallholder and landless farmers. Several pilot projects were initiated
to study the reproductive performance of buffaloes following UMMB
supplementation at various stages of reproduction, the results of which
are presented below.
Effect of pre-partum UMMB supplementation on postpartum
reproduction in buffaloes
High milk production, and therefore excessive drainage of body reserves,
in the immediate postpartum period leads to excessive weight loss,
which, in turn, suppresses ovarian activity. It is therefore preferable that
a dairy animal should have appropriate body reserves before parturition,
and sufficient feed intake after parturition to meet its energy demands
(Gearhart et al., 1990; Staples, Thatcher and Clark, 1990). The animals are,
however, unable to increase dry matter intake, owing to limited rumen
capacity and delayed ruminal microfloral adjustment to new, energy-rich
diets that are fed conventionally (Goff and Horst, 1997; Roche, Mackey
and Diskin, 2000). Hence, good quality feeding pre-partum is needed to
develop sufficient body reserves and also to attain timely adjustment of
ruminal microflora to the probable postpartum diet (Domecq et al., 1997;
Goff and Horst, 1997). The study reported here was undertaken to assess
the effect of pre-partum UMMB supplementary feeding on postpartum
reproductive performance in water buffaloes.
Thirty-two closely observed buffaloes were provided with UMMB
during the last trimester of gestation, and their postpartum onset of
ovarian activity was compared with that of unsupplemented controls.
Buffaloes in both the groups exhibited first behavioural oestrus between
15 and 45 days (average 24) postpartum. However, plasma progesterone
concentrations studied in a limited number of animals revealed that none
had ovulated (absence of a rise >1.0 ng/ml). UMMB supplementation did
not appear to affect the onset of first behavioural oestrus, which could
probably be related to factors other than nutritional status of an animal
(Beam and Butler, 1997; Butler, 2000). Ovulatory heat was recorded (plasma
progesterone concentration >1.0 ng/ml) in 90 percent of the supplemented
and 80 percent of the control buffaloes on average at 48 (range: 34–57) and
34 (range: 23–49) days postpartum, respectively. Incidence of silent heat
in the respective groups was 11 percent and 75 percent. The days taken to
first ovulatory heat (34 vs 48 days) and the proportion of silent heat (11 vs
75 percent) was noticeably lower in the supplemented than in the control
buffaloes. Further, the conception rate during the first 70 days postpartum
was noticeably higher in supplemented than in controls (30 percent vs
0 percent). Wider observations involving more buffaloes under field
conditions showed that 70 percent of the pre-partum UMMB supplemented
buffaloes exhibited fertile oestrus within 60 days postpartum, compared
with only 14 percent in control animals.
66 Experiences with urea-molasses blocks in buffalo production

Effect of postpartum UMMB supplementation on reproduction in

buffaloes
Good quality nutrition is a necessity for proper puerperal and postpartum
production and reproductive events, which, however, remain constrained
by limitations in concentrates and green fodder availability, especially
among poor farmers. UMMB supplementation to 14 freshly calved
buffaloes belonging to small-scale rural farmers proved beneficial. The
average percent body weight loss was greater (0.53 to 3.9 percent) in
unsupplemented than in supplemented (0.02 to 3.0 percent) buffaloes.
Further, the supplemented buffaloes started gaining body weight earlier
(5th week postpartum) than did the unsupplemented controls (7th week
postpartum). A higher proportion (71 percent) of the supplemented
buffaloes displayed oestrus within 50 days postpartum, compared with
only 14 percent in the controls (Randhawa, 2002). Similar benefits, however,
could not be seen from UMMB supplementation of buffaloes on larger-scale
organized urban dairy farms (Kumar, 2001), probably due to the already
better nutritional status of buffaloes (Makkar and Saijpaul, 1996).
Effects of UMMB supplementation in true anoestrus buffaloes
Fifty-four rural buffaloes suffering from true deep anoestrus, as confirmed
from history, per-rectal examination of genitalia and circulatory progesterone
concentrations, were supplemented with UMMB during September–
October. Of these, 90 percent came into heat and conceived within one
month of supplementary feeding, compared with only 28 percent in the
control group (Brar and Nanda, 2002). In another, similar, trial during
May–June – a period with minimal breeding activity in buffaloes (Nanda,
Brar and Prabhakar, 2003) – UMMB supplementation for 30 days induced
behavioural oestrus in 40 percent of the buffaloes, compared with only
10 percent in the control group. Extended UMMB supplementation
for another 30 days (total 60 days) induced behavioural oestrus in
85 percent of buffaloes, with a 100 percent first-service conception rate
(Kang et al., 2002). These studies suggested that malnutrition is a major
cause of anoestrus, and that it could be ameliorated through UMMB
supplementation, although the response was poorer during the hot, dry
summer than in spring.
Potentiation of reproductive hormonal therapy through UMMB
supplementation
Certain hormones are employed to induce fertility in anoestrus animals.
Variable responses, however, have been reported in buffaloes, probably
due to the variable nutritional status of treated animals. Therapeutic
efficacy of certain hormonal interventions was evaluated following UMMB
supplementary feeding in buffaloes. Groups of progesterone-primed
anoestrus buffaloes were treated with equine chorionic gonadotrophin
(eCG), with or without concomitant UMMB supplementation. Behavioural
oestrus was induced in 80 percent of the supplemented and 67 percent of the
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 67

unsupplemented buffaloes, of which 75 percent and 50 percent ovulated. It

is thus evident that UMMB supplementation affected behavioural as well
as ovulatory responses of the hormone-treated buffaloes (Kang et al., 2003;
Randhawa et al., 2003a).
From the foregoing, it appears that prevention and treatment of
anoestrus through UMMB supplementation strategy is better than eCG
treatment, taking into account the total time taken to conceive, requirement
for veterinary intervention, costs involved and loss of milk yield.
Effect of UMMB supplementation on milk production in
buffaloes
UMMB-supplemented buffaloes showed increased milk yield and
higher milk fat values at almost all stages of reproduction. Pre-partum
UMMB supplemented buffaloes on average yielded 88 kg more milk
per head during the first 60 days of subsequent lactation than did their
unsupplemented counterparts. Similarly, an average increase of 8 percent
milk yield and 0.5 percentage unit milk fat was recorded following UMMB
supplementation postpartum (Brar and Nanda, 2002). Supplemented
buffaloes sustained peak milk yield for longer (4 vs 2 weeks) than their
unsupplemented counterparts (Randhawa, 2002). UMMB feeding during
late lactation led to a 4 percent increase in milk yield and 0.7 percent unit
increase in milk fat, whereas the unsupplemented controls experienced a
decline in milk yield (Kang, 2002).
Buffaloes treated with eCG for induction of oestrus experienced a drop
in milk yield, which persisted for about 5 to 7 days. This drop, however,
was reduced by 40 percent in buffaloes supplemented with UMMB before
and during hormonal treatment.
Earlier studies by other workers in India (Makkar and Saijpaul, 1996)
also reported 6–8 percent increase in milk production in cows consuming
400–500 g UMMB daily. This could replace up to 20 percent of the
concentrate in the diet without affecting the quality and quantity of milk
produced and body weight in buffaloes fed with 30–35 kg green fodder
(Chauhan et al., 1997).
Biochemical changes after UMMB supplementation
High circulatory urea concentration, which may occur after consuming
protein-rich diet, has been linked to an altered uterine environment and
reduced fertility in dairy cattle (Beam and Butler, 1998). UMMB is a urea-
based nutritional supplement and apprehensions about its possible ill
effects on animal health are not totally unfounded. Laboratory studies
were undertaken to assess biochemical changes, if any, following long-
term UMMB consumption in buffaloes. The blood urea-nitrogen in all the
studies cited above remained within physiological limits (<20 mg/dl).
Blood glucose did not differ between the groups of buffaloes studied
68 Experiences with urea-molasses blocks in buffalo production

under field conditions. Total plasma proteins, insulin and creatinine,

estimated at weekly intervals in various studies, remained within normal
physiological limits. Blood concentration of free fatty acids, an indicator
of fat mobilization in lactating animals, was relatively lower in UMMB
supplemented than in unsupplemented buffaloes (42 vs 49 mg/dl). This
suggested a superior nutritional status in the supplemented animals
(Kang, 2002; Randhawa et al., 2003b).
Cost–benefit analysis of UMMB supplementation in
buffaloes
Use of UMMB supplementation proved economically beneficial. Taking
into account milk production alone, the average cost–benefit ratio of
feeding UMMB prepared by the cold process was 1:3. It was 1:2.3 during
the summer months (Kang, 2002) and 1:2.9 during spring (Randhawa,
2002). The Highest economic gain (1:4; Brar, 2001) was recorded following
UMMB supplementation during the last trimester pre-partum. Overall
financial gains were better for relatively underfed animals on small, rural
farms, compared with well fed animals in urban dairy units (Kumar, 2001;
Randhawa, 2002).
Obviously, the economic returns are more appreciable after feeding
UMMB prepared by the cold process than by the hot process because of
the lower costs of the former (Malik et al., 1997; Brar, 2001). The actual
economic returns from UMMB supplementation are much more than
reported in the preceding paragraphs because of the general improved
reproductive performance in the supplemented buffaloes. Increased milk
fat yield would also add to the benefits.

Extension of UMMB technology to the field

Extensive efforts have been made to transfer the technology to the end-
user, the farmer. The process of extension adopted by the authors’ team
included:
(i) training trainers, namely Field Veterinary Officers, veterinary
students, research scientists from various national veterinary
and animal husbandry teaching and research institutes and state
agricultural universities from 17 of the 27 states in India, and
international visiting fellows from Indonesia and Bangladesh;
(ii) training farmers, through more than 50 field demonstrations
given to rural dairy farmers at village-level centres and at animal
welfare camps organized in collaboration with Punjab State
Animal Husbandry Department. A UMMB Farmers’ Club has been
established, which at the time of writing had over 200 members;
(iii) implementing pilot projects in more than 20 villages to study
and to demonstrate the benefits of UMMB supplementation. At
first, the blocks were prepared and distributed free-of-cost to the
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 69

enrolled farmers, while later on they were encouraged to produce

blocks for themselves on a routine basis;
(iv) training private entrepreneurs in preparation of and supplementation
with UMMB on a commercial scale. Several private UMMB
production centres, organized mainly by the farmers, are now
producing and selling UMMB in Punjab. Mass UMMB production
has been initiated at some places after introducing minor changes
in the procedures. Production of 1 200 blocks by one entrepreneur
in about four hours has been recorded; and
(v) establishing 17 pilot farms in villages in the vicinity of Milk
Collection Centres, which are frequently visited by the local
dairy farmers. This proved highly effective in transfer of UMMB
technology from farmer to farmer.
The UMMB extension procedures used by the team vary somewhat
from the approach used by many earlier workers. The current emphasis
has been more on improvement of animal reproductive performance,
for which veterinary intervention is often needed. Training of field
veterinarians has thus been of immense help in extension of UMMB
technology to the end user. In addition, the UMMB club has worked well
through farmer-to-farmer contacts.

Experiences with medicated blocks

Limited work on this aspect of UMMB use has been done in India.
Incorporation of fenbendazole in blocks led to 13 percent increase in
milk production in buffaloes (Knox, 1995; Sanyal and Singh, 1995). In
the authors’ laboratory, preliminary trials on medicated blocks carrying
Replanta, a herbal drug, hastened uterine involution and postpartum
ovarian activity. Further work is in progress.
Limitations of UMMB Production in India
India is a vast country, with varied agroclimatic conditions and agro-
industrial by-product availability. Further, the climate changes a lot over
the year. This variability implies that no single block formulation, or even
process, may be valid at all times and in all places.
India has extreme fluctuations in green fodder availability over the year.
While blocks would be in high demand during the two fodder lean periods
(April–June and November–December), use of UMMB might not be beneficial
during gluts of lush fodder. This may affect the interests of commercial
UMMB firms, making it an unsustainable preposition. Nevertheless, this
could be effectively handled through providing information on when and
when not to use the feed supplementation blocks.
Blocks prepared by addition of tree leaves (Gupta and Malik, 1991) or
other unconventional ingredients (Saijpaul and Makkar 1996) could not be
popularized due to the limited area of their potential application.
70 Experiences with urea-molasses blocks in buffalo production

Future Of UMMB technology in India

The fast increasing human population pressure is reducing the land
available for fodder production. However, the increased cereal production
leaves abundant agro-industrial by-products, and UMMB has a great role
to play in the profitable utilization of these by-products, simultaneously
reducing potential environmental pollution. Apart from the importance
of UMMB in reproduction, as discussed earlier, there is a great potential
role to play in meeting the nutritional needs of animals in drought-prone
western states and in flood-affected eastern states of India. The use of
medicated blocks for control of endoparasites should be exploited in small
ruminants. The authors’ have already started exploring the use of UMMB
in solving the major problem of “delayed puberty” in buffaloes. The use
of UMMB as carrier to deliver many herbal digestive stimulants, herbal
galactagouges, herbal ecbolics, ionophores and anthelmintics is under
consideration.
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 71

References
Ahuja, A.K., Makkar, G.S. & Kakkar, V.K. 1986. Studies on nitrogen metabolism
in the buffalo rumen by feeding “uromin” lick. SAARS Journal of Livestock and
Poultry Production, 2: 85.
Bakshi, M.P.S., Gupta, V.K. & Langer, P.N. 1986. Fermented straw as a complete
basal ration for ruminants. Agricultural Wastes, 16: 37–46.
Beam, S.W. & Butler, W.R. 1997. Energy balance and ovarian follicle development
prior to the first ovulation postpartum in dairy cows receiving three levels of
dietary fat. Biology of Reproduction, 56: 133–142.
Beam, S.W. & Butler, W.R. 1998. Energy balance, metabolic hormones and early
postpartum follicular development in dairy cows fed prilled lipid. Journal of
Dairy Science, 81: 121–131.
Brar, P.S. 2001. Studies on sub-fertility in buffaloes in relation to season and
nutritional status. Ph.D. thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.
Brar, P.S. & Nanda, A.S. 2002. Effect of supplementary feeding in improving
reproductive performance in buffaloes. p.271, in: 9th International Congress
on Biotechnology in Animal Reproduction (Management of Farm Animal
Reproduction - Fertility Improvement and Advanced Technologies), 2–4
December 2002, Chenni, India.
Brar, P.S. & Nanda, A.S. 2003. Formulation and development of UMMB by cold
method for improving fertility in dairy buffaloes. XIX Annual Convention and
National Symposium of Indian society for study of animal Reproduction, 22–24
August 2003, Calcutta, India.
Butler, W.R. 2000. Nutritional interactions with reproductive performance in dairy
cattle. Animal Reproduction Science, 60–61: 449–457.
Chauhan, T.R., Gupta, R., Dahiya, S.S. & Punia, B.S. 1997. Effect of supplementing
urea molasses blocks in the ration of buffaloes on nutrient utilization and milk
production. Indian Journal of Animal Science, 67: 418–421.
Chopra, A.K., Kakkar, V.K., Gill, R.S. & Kaushal, J.R. 1974. Preparation of
uromol, a urea molasses complex and its rate of breakdown in vitro. Indian Journal
of Animal Science, 44: 970–972.
Domecq, J.J., Skidmore, A.L., Lloyd, J.W. & Kaneene. 1997. Relationship
between body condition scores and conception at first artificial insemination
in a large dairy herd of high yielding Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science,
80: 113–120.
Garg, M.R., Mehta, A.K. & Singh, D.K. 1998. Advances in the production and use
of urea molasses mineral blocks in India. World Animal Review, 90: 1.
Gearhart, M.A., Curtis, C.R., Erb, H.N., Smith, R.D., Sniffen, C.J., Chase, L.E. &
Cooper, M.D. 1990. Relationship of changes in condition score to cow health in
Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science, 73: 3132–3140.
Goff, J.P. & Horst, R.L. 1997. Physiological changes at parturition and their
relationship to metabolic disorders. Journal of Dairy Science, 80: 1260–1268.
72 Experiences with urea-molasses blocks in buffalo production

Gupta, B.K. & Malik, N.S. 1991. Preliminary studies of a new block lick of Subabul
leaves. Indian Journal of Animal Science, 61: 113–116.
Kakkar, V.K. & Makkar, G.S. 1995. Comparative characteristics of the available
mineral block (UMMB). Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 12: 37–40.
Kakkar, V.K., Malik, N.S. & Makkar, G.S. 1997. Uromin lick as a replacement of
concentrate mixture in buffaloes. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 13: 203–205.
Kang, R.S. 2002. Studies on therapeutic efficacy of supplementary feeding and
hormonal treatment in anoestrus buffaloes under small-scale dairy farming.
M.V.Sc. thesis. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. India.
Kang, R.S., Nanda, A.S., Brar, P.S. & Honparkhe, M. 2003. Effect of supplementary
feeding on therapeutic efficacy of hormonal treatment in anoestrus buffaloes. 4th
Asian Buffalo Congress on Buffalo for food security and rural development. New
Delhi, India, 25–28 February 2003.
Kang, R.S., Nanda, A.S., Brar, P.S., Honparkhe, M., Gandotra, V.K. & Jindal, R.
2002. Effect of urea molasses multi-nutrient block supplementation on ovarian
activity in summer anoestrus buffaloes. XVIII Annual Convention and National
Symposium on Reproductive Technologies for Augmentation of Fertility in
Livestock. Izatnagar, India, 14–16 November 2002.
Kaur, S. 1993. Comparative utilization of urea-N through gradual licking in buffalo
calves. M.Sc. thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.
Knox, M. 1995. The use of medicated blocks to control nematode parasites
of ruminants. pp.116–121, in: Recent advances in animal nutrition in Australia.
Armidale, Australia: University of New England.
Kumar, S. 2001. Studies on factors affecting the onset of follicular activity in
postpartum buffaloes. M.V.Sc. thesis. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana,
India.
Makkar, G.S. & Saijpaul, S. 1996. Uromin-Lick – A success story. Progressive
Farming, May: 22–23.
Malik, N.S., Makkar, G.S. & Kakkar, V.K. 1993. Methodology of preparation and
nutritive value of uromin lick. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 10: 105–106.
Malik, N.S., Makkar, G.S., Mehra, M.L. & Kakkar, V.K. 1997. Effect of uromin
lick feeding to crossbred milch cows under organized farm condition with loose
system. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 14: 54–56.
Nanda, A.S., Brar, P.S. & Prabhakar, S. 2003. Enhancing reproductive performance
in dairy buffalo: Major constraints and achievements. Reproduction Supplement,
61: 1–10.
Randhawa, R. 2002. Studies on the effect of endocrine and nutritional modulations
for enhancing ovarian activity in postpartum anoestrus buffaloes. M.V.Sc. thesis.
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.
Randhawa, B., Pangaonkar, G.R., Brar, P.S. , Nanda, A S. & Gandotra, V.K. 2003a.
Response of gonadotrophin treatment of postpartum anoestrus buffaloes after
supplementary feeding. 4th Asian Buffalo Congress on Buffalo for food security and
rural development. New Delhi, India, 25–28 February 2003.
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 73

Randhawa, B., Pangaonkar, G.R., Brar, P.S. & Nanda, A.S. 2003b. Certain
biochemical alterations in relation to the onset of ovarian activity in postpartum
buffaloes with supplementary feeding. 4th Asian Buffalo Congress on Buffalo for
food security and rural development. New Delhi, India, 25–28 February 2003.
Roche, J.F., Mackey, D. & Diskin, M.D. 2000. Reproductive management of
postpartum cows. Animal Reproduction Science, 60–61: 703–712.
Saijpal, S. & Makkar, G.S. 1996. Unconventional feed ingredients in the
formulation of uromin lick. Second National Symposium on Buffalo Research for
Higher Productivity, Hissar, India.
Sanyal, P.K. & Singh, D.K. 1995. Administration of fenbendazole in urea molasses
block to dairy buffaloes in India. Tropical Animal Health Production, 27: 186–190.
Staples, C.R., Thatcher, W.W. & Clark, J.H. 1990. Relationship between ovarian
activity and energy status during the early postpartum period of high producing
dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 79: 938–947.
Tripathi, A.K. 1997. New concepts in feeding. pp.305–308, in: P.R. Gupta (ed) Dairy
India. New Delhi: Baba Barka Nath Printers.
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 75

Urea molasses multinutrient

blocks technology –
Bangladesh experiences
M. A. S. Khan7, M. A. R. Chowdhury1, M. A. Akbar8
and M. Shamsuddin9

Introduction
Bangladesh is an agricultural country, and livestock play an important role
in the rural economy. There are about 24 million cattle, with an average milk
production of 1.0 kg/day in local cow and about 3.0 kg/day in crossbred
cow. About 1.62 million tonne of milk is produced for 140 million people,
and per capita availability of milk was 30 ml in 1999-2000 (DLS, 2001).
The average milk production of small-scale market-oriented dairy cows is
5 kg/day. Practically no grazing land is available for animals due to high
pressure on land for cereal grain production for human consumption. Low
productivity and poor reproductive performance in local and crossbred
cows due to feeding with poor quality straw-based diets and improper
management are common features of livestock husbandry in Bangladesh.
There is a serious scarcity of green grass, and consequently agricultural
crop residues or by-products are fed to the animals, together with only a
limited amount of high-cost concentrate. As a result, smallholder farms
face serious problems in feeding dairy animals for optimum production.
For several years, attempts have been made to help the smallholder farmers
make the best possible use of locally available feed resources so that crops
and livestock can be produced more efficiently and profitably. Feed
supplementation strategies have been developed to correct the nutrient

7 Department of Dairy Science, Bangladesh Agricultural

U n i v e r s i t y, Mymensingh-2202, Bangladesh.
E-mail: <[email protected]
8 Department of Animal Nutrition, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh-2202,
Bangladesh
9 Department of Surgery and Obstetrics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh-
2202, Bangladesh
E-mail: <[email protected]>
76 Urea molasses block technology - Bangladesh experiences

deficiency of poor quality roughages. Urea-molasses multinutrient blocks

(UMMBs) have been introduced at village level and on mini-dairy farms in
some urban and peri-urban areas in Bangladesh.
Initially, the focus was on increasing straw utilization by ruminants,
because straw is the major source of feed available. Although straw is
available in large quantities, it is low in nutritive value due to its high
lignocellulose content, with only small amounts of crude protein and
essential minerals. It was possible to improve the feeding value of rice
straw using chemical treatments (Saadullah, 1991), but this approach
did not become popular among farmers because of the extra cost and
extra work involved (Akbar, 1992). In order to find suitable supplements
to optimize rumen fermentation to enhance production and improve
reproductive performance, one approach used was to supplement the rice
straw with more readily available materials to provide the energy and
protein that were lacking in the basal diet.
After studies on the nutritional status of the animals, the selected
supplement was made into a UMMB that could be licked by the animal.
UMMB was prepared with locally available feed ingredients that are
cheap, and with some ingredients produced on-farm as agricultural by-
products. Considering the nutritive value and cost of block constituents,
the composition of a typical block was 39 percent sugar-cane molasses,
20 percent wheat bran, 20 percent rice polish, 10 percent urea, 6 percent
lime powder and 5 percent common salt. Molasses from the sugar cane
industry is available at low cost, although it is now also being used for
various purposes in the food and pharmaceutical industries. Rice polish
and other ingredients are also available at a reasonable low cost. The cold
process was used for manufacturing block on a small scale (Sansoucy,
1995). This method is simple and does not require expensive equipment
to make the blocks. Urea and salt are mixed in a bowl with the required
amount of molasses, and kept overnight. Then lime powder, rice polish
and wheat bran are mixed thoroughly (Figure 6.1). The previously mixed
molasses, urea and salt is then poured onto the mixture of wheat bran,
rice polish and lime powder. The mixture is then mixed thoroughly by
hand or with a concrete mixer (for medium-scale production) and poured
into a wooden or steel mould, typically about 9 × 5 × 6 (23×13×15 cm)
in size (Figure 6.2). The material is pressed into the mould using foot
pressure or a simple press (Figure 6.3), and then released from the mould
and set aside to harden on the floor (Figure 6.4). Pressure on the block in
a mould can also be created with a ball press machine for easier operation
and small-scale production. Hardening requires at least 15 hours at room
temperature. The block is then ready for presentation to the animal
(Figure 6.5).
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 77

Figure 6.1 Mixing of wheat bran, rice polish and lime powder.

Figure 6.2 Placing the mixture into a mould.

78 Urea molasses block technology - Bangladesh experiences

Figure 6.3 A mechanical device being used for making UMMB licks.

Figure 6.4 Removing a block from the mould.

Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 79

Figure 6.5 Block being licked by a cow.

UMMB licks for improvement of milk yield and

reproductive performance of indigenous cows
To test the effects on intake and productivity of cattle, as well to assess
acceptance by farmers, UMMBs were distributed to farmers in selected
villages in Mymensingh district who were rearing indigenous cows on
straw-based diets. Milk yield, body weight gain, calf weight gain and
body condition score increased on providing UMMB licks for cows
(Table 6.1)
With UMMB supplementation, cows came into heat earlier after calving
(Table 6.2). The first progesterone (P4) rise of a cow after calving, first
detectable heat, calving-to-conception interval and calving interval were
shorter in UMMB-supplemented cows compared with unsupplemented
indigenous cows (Mazed, 1997). Positive effects on milk production
and reproductive performance of indigenous cows were also reported
by others workers (Maih et al., 1999, 2000). They found that milk yield
and body weight gain of cows and of suckling calves improved upon
providing UMMB licks.
80 Urea molasses block technology - Bangladesh experiences

Table 6.1
Effect of feeding UMMB on productive performance of indigenous cows and
calves.
Treatment Level of
Parameter
-UMMB +UMMB significance(1)
Milk yield (kg/day) 1.47 1.84 *
Body weight change of cow -33 -4 NS
(g/day)
Calf’s weight gain (g/day) 66 110 **
Body condition score of cow on 1-5 scale 2.31 2.51 **
NOTE: (1) * P <0.05; ** P <0.01. SOURCE: Mazed, 1997.

Table 6.2
Effects of feeding UMMB on postpartum reproductive performance of indigenous
cows (Mazed, 1997)
Treatments Level of
Indicators
-UMMB +UMMB significance
Interval from calving to:
1st progesterone rise (days) 104 103 NS
1st oestrus (days) 194 130 **
Conception (days) 199 162 NS
Calving interval (days) 480 443 NS
NOTE: ** P <0.01

Optimum level of UMMB for crossbred cows

Further attempts were made to assess the effect of feeding UMMB on
milk yield and reproductive performance of crossbred cows reared in
commercially oriented small-scale dairy farms in peri-urban areas and
villages, fed a rice-straw-based diet. UMMB was made using locally
available feed ingredients: molasses (39 percent), wheat bran (20 percent),
rice polish (20 percent), lime powder (CaO) (6 percent) and common salt
(5 percent). The blocks were prepared using the cold process. Four levels
of UMMB were fed to the cows (0; 350; 500; and 650 g/head/day of block
(treatment groups T0, T1, T2 and T3, respectively) to establish the optimum
amount of UMMB required for maximum production response in crossbred
cows with an average of 300 kg body weight and fed 2.75 kg/head/day
of homemade concentrate mixture, with an initial milk production of
about 6 kg/day. In this context, it should be noted that long anoestrus
periods and infertility are serious problems in rearing crossbred cows in
Bangladesh. Results were encouraging. On feeding UMMB, milk yields of
dairy cattle increased by 1 to 1.5 kg/day (Table 6.3). The optimum level of
UMMB for crossbred cows to achieve higher milk production and better
reproductive performance was 500 g/head/day.
Cows and calves with access to UMMB licks gained more body weight
than their counterparts without access to UMMB. The intervals from
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 81

calving to initiation of luteal activity, oestrus and conception were shorter

in UMMB-fed lactating cows (Table 6.4).
The postpartum reproductive intervals of cow can be reduced by
feeding UMMB (Hendratno, 1999), which is of economic significance. It
was interesting that the difference between first progesterone rise and first
detectable oestrus were 66 to 80 days in groups T0 and T3 (Table 6.4), which
indicated that the farmers were unable to detect heat at its first occurrence,
resulting in 3 to 4 heats lost without insemination. The calving interval of
cows was reduced by 64 days in group T2, which has an economic value as
more calves are produced over the total reproductive life of a cow. Taking
10 years as a typical reproductive life of a cow, it is expected that a cow
in the T0 group will produce 7 calves in her total reproductive life, while
cows in group T2 group will produce 8 calves each. The additional calf and
lactation from each cow earns more profit in the T2 group of animals.
Table 6.3
Mean values for milk yield, body weight change in cows and calf weight gain.
Diet(1) Level of
Parameter SEM
T0 T1 T2 T3 significance
Milk yield (kg/day)
180 days average 5.42 5.49 6.81 6.83 0.009 *
Lactation average 3.33 3.38 4.19 4.20 0.055 *
3.5 percent FCM(2) 5.95 6.38 8.16 8.16 0.106 **
Lactation yield (kg) 1115 1196 1527 1531 19.85 **
Body weight change of cow 9.4b 65.9ab 88.1a 88.4a 4.302 *
(g/day)
Calf weight gain (g/day) 159b 167b 215a 228a 2.717 ***
NOTES: (1) The diets were: T0 = Control (no UMMB); T1= 350 g/head/day UMMB; T2 = 500 g/
head/day UMMB; T3 = 650 g/head/day UMMB. (2) FCM = fat-corrected milk. a,b = means
with different superscripts differ significantly (P <0.05).
82 Urea molasses block technology - Bangladesh experiences

Table 6.4
Effect of UMMB on postpartum reproductive intervals of cows
Indices Diets(1) SEM Level of
T0 T1 T2 T3 significance
Interval from
calving to- (d)
1st 96 87 82 62 3.486 NS
progesterone rise
(days)
1st oestrus 162 132 123 142 4.555 NS
(days)
Conception 234 187 170 170 5.702 NS
(days)
Next calving 517 470 453 460 5.670 NS
(days)
Calving interval – 47 64 57 ***
reduced
(days)
Service per 2.67a 2.0b 1.8b 1.73b 0.044 NS
conception(2)
(No.)
NOTES: (1) Diets were: T0 = Control (no UMMB); T1 = 350 g/head/day UMMB; T2 = 500 g/
head/day UMMB; T3 = 650 g/head/day UMMB. (2) Means with different superscripts differ
significantly (P <0.05). NS = not significant.
Economic returns were calculated for the different groups of animals.
The highest profit was earned from the T2 group (US$ 2.11), fed 500 g of
UMMB/head/day (Table 6.5).
Table 6.5
Economic benefit from UMMB supplementation in cows
Diet(2)
Item
T0 T1 T2 T3
Cost (Tk/day)(1)
Cost of supplement [1] 0 2.52 3.60 4.68
Cost of basal diet [2] 29.71 32.94 34.13 34.16
Total feed cost [A = 1 + 2] 29.71 35.46 37.74 38.84
Income (Tk/cow/day)
from milk sale [a] 119.00 127.60 136.20 136.60
from cow weight gain [b] 0.75 5.27 7.04 7.08
from calf weight gain [c] 12.72 13.28 17.20 18.56
Total income [ B= a + b + c] 121.80 128.33 160.44 162.24
Profit [B –A] (Tk/cow/day) 92.09 92.87 122.70 123.40
Profit (US$/cow/day) 1.58 1.60 2.11 2.12
Cost:benefit ratio 1:3 1:2.7 1:3.3 1:3.2
Notes: (1) Calculated in taka (Tk). Exchange rate at the time of reporting: Tk 58 = US$ 1.
(2) Diets were: T0 = Control (no UMMB); T1 = 350 g/head/day UMMB; T2 = 500 g/head/day
UMMB; T3 = 650 g/head/day UMMB.
A number of studies in villages and peri-urban areas of Bangladesh
have demonstrated the benefits of using UMMB as a supplement with cut-
and-carry forages offered to dairy cattle on smallholder farms.
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 83

Replacement of concentrate by UMMB

Efforts have been made to replace concentrate by UMMB and to study
performance under village farming condition. Concentrate feeds are costly
and not available throughout the year. Moreover, smallholder farmers
are reluctant to purchase concentrate ingredients when milk production
goes down at the end of the lactation. Many farmers rear cows on very
small amount of concentrate to minimize feed cost. To study the effect of
replacing concentrate by UMMB, 60 multiparous crossbred dairy cows
reared on straw-based diets were selected. Three diets, comprising a daily
ration per head of 2.75 kg concentrate (T0), 2.45 kg concentrate + 0.30 kg
UMMB (T1) or 2.25 kg concentrate + 0.50 kg UMMB (T2), were fed to three
groups of 20 lactating cows each. Rice straw was fed as roughage, with a
very small amount of cut-and-carry grass (1.4 kg/head/day) under zero
grazing conditions for 180 days. The results are presented in Table 6.6.
Animals in group T2 had significantly (P <0.001) higher roughage intake,
and milk yield was also improved significantly (P <0.05) (6.94 kg/head/
day). The fat content of milk increased in T1 (45.8 g/kg) and T2 (48.4 g/kg)
groups compared with the control, T0 (40.4 g/kg). The highest content
of fat was in the T2 group, which resulted in higher economic return.
Body weight gain of calves was improved significantly (P <0.05). Calving
interval was also reduced by 60 days. The highest profit was in the T2 group
(US$ 2.70/head/day), and derived mostly from replacing concentrate by
500 g UMMB/head/day.
Protein content of milk increased with increasing amounts of UMMB,
and non-fat milk solids (SNF) and total solids (TS) also increased when
concentrate was replaced with 300 g and 500 g UMMB in groups T1 and
T2, respectively (Table 6.7). Supplementation with UMMB resulted in
improved milk quality.
Table 6.6
Effect of UMMB supplementation on intake, milk yield and body weight change of
cows and calves.
Diet(2) Level of
Parameters SEM
T0 T1 T2 significance(1)
Roughage intake (kg 6.9 8.0 9.2 0.177 **
DM/day)
Total DM intake (kg/day) 9.4 10.5 11.3 0.29 NS
Milk yield (kg/day) 5.6b 5.8b 6.9a 0.07 ***
3.5% FCM (kg/day) 6.1b 6.9b 8.5a 0.09 ***
Body weight change of cow 6.1 13.7 42.9 5.46 NS
(g/day)
Calf weight gain (g/day) 160b 181b 248a 4.74 *
Calving interval (days) 485 483 425 10.48 NS
Notes: (1) * * * = P<0.001; NS = not significant (P >0.05). (2) T0 =2.75 kg concentrate
per day, no UMMB; T1 = 2.45 kg/day concentrate + 0.30 kg/day UMMB; T2 = 2.25 kg/day
concentrate + 0.50 kg/day UMMB. Means with different superscripts differ significantly (P
<0.05). DM = dry matter
84 Urea molasses block technology - Bangladesh experiences

Table 6.7
Effect of UMMB supplementation on milk composition of crossbred cows
Diet(1) Level of
Components SEM
T0 T1 T2 significance
Milk fat (g /100 g) 4.04 4.58 4.84 0.15 NS
Milk protein (g /100 g) 3.5 3.56 3.62 0.05 NS
Lactose (g /100 g) 3.95 3.93 4.10 0.04 NS
SNF (g /100 g) 8.12 8.17 8.42 0.08 NS
TS (g /100 g) 12.16 12.77 13.26 0.19 NS
KEY: SNF = non-fat milk solids. TS = total [milk] solids.
NOTES: (1) T0 = 2.75 kg/day concentrate, no UMMB; T1 = 2.45 kg/day concentrate + 0.30 kg/
day UMMB; T2 = 2.25 kg/day concentrate + 0.50 kg/day UMMB.

Table 6.8
Economic benefit from UMMB supplementation with different amount of concentrate
in crossbred cows.
Diet(2)
Item
T0 T1 T2
Cost (1) (Tk/day)
Cost of supplement [1] 0 2.16 3.60
Cost of basal diet [2] 29.70 29.48 29.75
Total feed cost [A= 1 + 2] 29.70 31.64 33.35
Income (1) (Tk/day)
Income from milk sales [a] 122.0 138.2 169.0
income from cow weight gain [b] 0.48 1.09 3.43
Income from calf weight gain [c] 12.80 14.48 14.72
Total income [B= a + b + c] 135.28 153.77 187.15
Profit [B -A] (Tk/day) 105.58 122.13 153.80
Profit from UMMB supplement (US$/day)* 1.85 2.14 2.70
Cost:benefit ratio 1:3.5 1:4 1:5
NOTES: (1) Calculated in taka (Tk). Exchange rate at the time of reporting: Tk 58 = US$ 1.
Milk price = Tk. 20.00/kg, Concentrate = Tk 7.40/kg; UMMB = Tk 7.20/kg. (2) Diets: T0 =
2.75 kg concentrate, no UMMB; T1 = 2.45 kg concentrate + 0.30 kg UMMB/day; T2 = 2.25 kg
concentrate + 0.50 kg UMMB/day.
Economic benefits of partial replacement of concentrate with equal
amount of UMMB were assessed. Replacing concentrate by 300 g or 500 g
UMMB per day resulted in more earnings than feeding concentrate alone
(Table 6.8). The benefits of replacement of concentrate were due to the
lower cost of UMMB compared with concentrate mixture, and improved
milk yield and quality, especially higher fat content. It was observed that
the body weight gain of suckling calves was higher in groups T1 and T2
(181 g/day and 248 g/day, respectively) than in the non-replacement group
(160 g/day), which also has an economic value. Similarly, early postpartum
weight gain of a cow has a positive effect on the next pregnancy and
calving. It was observed that the cost-benefit ratio was highest in group T2
group (1:5), with a total profit of US$ 2.70/day (Table 6.8).
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 85

Feeding UMMB to animals for growth

In Bangladesh, animals frequently suffer from stunted growth because
of poor nutrition. The only feeds are rice straw and small quantities of
cut and carried forage, which is seasonally available., Attempts were
therefore made to supplement their diets using UMMB licks. The results
were encouraging. Use of UMMB increased liveweight gain of buffalo
heifers (Akbar, Islam and Moldak, 1991). UMMB supplementation with
straw-based diets for indigenous cows resulted in 4.8 percent increased
liveweight gain after calving, and it also stimulated initiation of ovarian
cyclicity earlier than in counterpart unsupplemented animals (Ghosh,
Alam and Akbar, 1993).

UMMB supplementation in dry season

The principal animal feed resource in Bangladesh is rice straw (90 percent
of roughages), and rice by-products, such as rice polish. Farmers also feed
their cattle with mixed green fodder (grass and forbs) cut from roadsides,
but during the dry season – November to April – such mixed green fodder
is not available and the animals are completely dependent on rice straw
as the sole feed. To sustain the level of milk production, supplementary
feeding is essential for dairy cattle. In addition, many of the cattle in
Bangladesh calve during the dry season.
Supplementation with UMMB has been proved to be an effective
strategy to compensate for the nutrients deficit in the conventional base
diet.
A limited area of fallow land, roadsides and other areas has been used
as open grazing land (locally called Bhathan) in Sirajgonj district in the
dry season (November–April). A limited effort has been made to manage
this rough pasture land and mixed grasses are grown naturally. Animals
are kept temporarily in this area for the dry period (7 months), with a
small amount of concentrate (1 or 2 kg/day). Dairy cows are underfed,
and poor milk production and body weight loss are common features of
this type of cattle rearing. During the rainy season (June–October) these
animals are kept in stalls in the farmer’s homestead and stall feeding is
practised. In this season, land is inundated and no green grass is available
in this area for animals. Consequently, rice straw is the only roughage for
maintaining body weight and milk production. UMMB supplementation
may play an important role in this situation as well. According to farmer’s
observation and experience, feeding 500 g UMMB/day to a lactating cow
can sustain milk production without any concentrate. Many farmers have
been making UMMB on their farms and feeding to lactating cows for more
milk and to bring their cows into heat early. Some farmers have been using
UMMB as a substitute for concentrate. A considerable number of farmers
have accepted this technology on their own initiative.
86 Urea molasses block technology - Bangladesh experiences

UMMB supplementation in working animals

In Bangladesh, Saadullah (1991) observed that supplementation of UMMB
to draught cows fed a basal diet of urea-treated rice straw or untreated rice
straw increased feed intake, daily milk yield, lactation period and daily
liveweight gain from calving to pregnancy detection. The supplementation
also increased the draught output (Table 6.9).
Table 6.9
Performance of draught cows with or without UMMB supplementation on rice-
straw-based diets in Bangladesh.
Untreated straw Treated straw
Parameters
-UMMB +UMMB -UMMB +UMMB
Milk yield (g/day) 452 460 515 570
Lactation period (days) 220 235 246 255
Liveweight gain from calving to
20 40 87 150
pregnancy detection (days)
First heat after calving (days) 210 210 205 195

Farmers’ observations and experiences with

UMMB feeding in Bangladesh
• Farmers reported that their animals looked healthier, their skin
appeared shiny, and they had good body condition.
• Their animals consumed more feed, especially roughages, with
increased straw intake.
• Their animals came into heat earlier after calving.
• Concentrate provision could be reduced by UMMB use to sustain
milk production.
• Cows with access to UMMB continued giving milk for a longer
period.
• Milk production could be sustained by providing UMMB to low
yielding (2–6 kg/day) cows, without feeding any concentrate.

Factors influencing the adoption of UMMB

technology in Bangladesh
• The price of ingredients used in UMMB making fluctuate according
to the season. For example, the price of molasses in the local market is
unstable, reflecting its seasonal availability. Its availability is higher
and price lower in the sugar cane crushing season.
• Farmers are interested in getting the blocks in a readymade form
in the local market, but there is no large-scale manufacturer in the
market.
• Level of education of the farmers is an important factor. The
technology was adopted more rapidly in those places having a higher
proportion of literate people.
• The economic condition of farmers affects technology adoption. Poor
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 87

farmers are unable to purchase UMMBs due to lack of money, as they

purchase their food daily and often meet requirements by selling milk
on a daily basis.
• Large-scale production of UMMB, which could increase availability, is
probably not possible without financial support from the Government,
due to lack of capital investment.
• Usually, medium-scale milk producers (5–15 kg milk/day) at village
level are more concerned about increasing milk production and are
ready to invest in the technology. Farmers having only one or two
cows with low production levels are less interested in additional
investment.

Factors for successful development and use of

UMMB technology in Bangladesh
The use of UMMB has become popular in Bangladesh. Several factors have
influenced this development.
• A severe scarcity of feeds and fodder for ruminants, and feeding low
quality rice straw results in lower milk yield and poor reproductive
performance. Increased milk production and reproductive efficiency
can be easily achieved using an N-containing supplement.
• Good demand for milk. This encourages farmers to use a supplement,
such as UMMB, that can be produced at home using cheap, locally
available, feed resources.

Conclusion
UMMB supplementation is an effective means of correcting nutrient
deficits in poor quality roughages. It use as a supplement improved
productivity of local and crossbred cows reared on straw-based diets.
High-cost concentrates can be replaced by UMMB licks. The studies
showed that milk production could be sustained by providing UMMB
without any concentrate up to outputs levels of 5 kg of milk per day.
UMMB supplementation can be recommended to improve the nutritional
status of cattle fed straw-based diets in Bangladesh. There is a need to
extend this technology to a greater number of farmers through intensive
extension efforts.
88 Urea molasses block technology - Bangladesh experiences

REFERENCES
Akbar, M.A. 1992. Methods of urea incorporation in straw and their effects
on performance of buffalo heifers. American Journal of Agricultural Science,
5(3): 545–548.
Akbar, M.A., Islam, S.M.A. & Modak, P.C. 1991. Effect of different methods of
urea incorporation in rice straw diets on digestibility and growth rate of buffalo
heifers. Buffalo Journal, 7(2): 129–135.
DLS [Department of Livestock Services]. 2000. An Overview, Government of the
People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
Ghosh, A., Alam, M.G.S. & Akbar, M.A. 1993. Effect of urea molasses mineral
block supplementation on postpartum ovarian activity in zebu cows. Animal
Reproduction Science, 31: 61–67.
Hendratno, C. 1999. Development of UMMB as a feed supplement for ruminants
and the application by traditional farmers. pp.1–9, in: Papers presented to the IAEA
regional training workshop on Self-Coating Solid-Phase Radioimmunoassay
(Sc-RIA) for measuring progesterone in milk of ruminant livestock. Mataram,
Indonesia, 23–27 August 1999.
Hendratno, C., Nolan, J.V., & Leng, R.A. 1991. The importance of urea molasses
multinutrient blocks for ruminant production in Indonesia. pp.157–169, in:
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Isotope and Related Techniques
in Animal Production and Health. FAO/IAEA Joint Div., Vienna, 15–19 April
1991.
Maih, A.G., Salma, U., Khan, M.A.S. & Ali, M.L. 1999. Effects of urea molasses
multinutrient blocks on the reproductive performance of indigenous (zebu)
cows. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science, 29(1–2): 11–19.
Maih, A.G., Salma, U., Khan, M.A.S. & Ali, M.L. 2000. Effect of urea molasses
multinutrient blocks on the productive performance of indigenous cows.
Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science, 29(1–2): 135–142.
Mazed, M.A. 1997. Effect of urea molasses multinutrient blocks on the productive
and reproductive performance of indigenous (zebu) cows under the village
condition of Bangladesh using radioimmunoassay techniques. M.S. thesis,
Department of Dairy Science, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh,
Bangladesh. 46 pp.
Saadullah, M. 1991. The importance of urea-molasses blocks and bypass protein
in animal production: the situation in Bangladesh, pp.145–156, in: Proceedings
of the International Symposium on Isotope and Related Techniques in Animal
Production and Health. FAO/IAEA Joint Div., Vienna, 15–19 April 1991.
Sansoucy, R. 1995. New development in the manufacture and utilization of
multinutrient blocks. World Animal Review, 82: 78–83.
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 89

Feed supplementation
blocks – experiences in
China
Jian-Xin Liu10, Ruijun Long11 and Degang Zhang12

Introduction
With the development of animal production and adjustment in the
structure of livestock husbandry, the numbers of herbivores in the
People’s Republic of China increased rapidly in the last decade. This
development has been based on both increased utilization of crop residues
and increased cultivation of grass and forage. Since 1992, when livestock
production based on crop residues was included in the State Agriculture
Comprehensive Development Project, significant progress has been made
(Guo and Yang, 1997). There has been a large increase in beef and mutton
production, with large-scale extension campaigns for utilization of crop
residues. However, efficiency of livestock production is not satisfactory
because digestibility of straw is low and lacks protein. Many farmers in
rural and peri-urban areas usually offer their cattle and sheep only limited
concentrate supplementation. The animals suffer from malnutrition due to
insufficient supply of minerals, of nitrogen in particular.
As an important and effective supplementary feed, multinutrient
blocks were introduced into China in the early 1990s (Guo and Zhang,
1991). Since then, extensive research work has been conducted in China
on the preparation and use of multinutrient blocks for ruminant animals,
including beef cattle (Lai et al., 1997; Liu et al., 1995; Ma et al., 1995; Zou et
al., 1998), goat and sheep (Jia et al., 1995; Xu, Tian and Wang, 1994; Yang,
Jiang and Wen, 1996; Chen et al., 2001b; Zhang et al, 1998b), buffalo (Guan
et al., 2001a; Zou et al., 1996; Lu et al., 1995), dairy cattle (Chen et al, 1993a,
1993b; Wang et al, 1995; Tang et al., 1998), and yaks (Zhang, 1998; Dong et
al., 2002; Long et al., 1998; 2002). Much progress has been made and new
techniques have been developed for manufacturing multinutrient blocks
in China.

10 .College of Animal Sciences, Zhejiang University, 310029 Hangzhou, People’s Republic

of China. E-mail: <[email protected]>
11 Northwest Plateau Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 810008 Xining,
People’s Republic of China.
12 College of Grassland Science, Gansu Agricultural University, 730070 Lanzhou, People’s
Republic of China. E-mail: <[email protected]> or <[email protected]>
90 Feed blocks – experiences in China

Formulas and composition of the blocks

Ingredients of the blocks
The multinutrient lick blocks developed in China contain molasses, urea,
common salt and minerals, with aim of supplying roughage-based diets
with fermentable N, soluble carbohydrates and minerals. In addition to
ground maize, rice bran and wheat bran, oilseed meals, grass meal, bone
meal and vitamin premix have been included in the blocks (Chen et al.,
1993a; Li et al. 1995; Zou et al., 1996; Gao and Meng, 2002). Table 7.1 gives
some sample formulas of multinutrient lick blocks from China.
Molasses is a source of easily fermentable carbohydrates and is a
binder. Blocks are highly palatable when they contain molasses. It has
been demonstrated that mixing molasses and urea can greatly slow the
release of NH3-N in the rumen. Mineral premix usually contains calcium,
phosphorus and sodium as well as micro-elements such as Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn,
I, Se and Co (Liu et al., 1995; Zhang et al. 1999). Lime or cement has been
used commonly as a solidifer and binder. Ordinary clay or bentonite has
also proved efficient for block making (Chen et al., 1993b; Guan et al., 1998).
Farmers in some regions used loess as a binder (H.W. Ye, pers. comm.).
In a series of demonstration trials in Gansu province, where the basic
animal diet comprised wheat straw and other stubble, Chen et al. (1993a)
chose three formulas to satisfy the needs of cows, heifers and calves
(Table 7.1). Many workers have used molasses as one ingredient for blocks
(Li et al., 1995; Yang, Jiang and Wen, 1996; Guan et al., 1998), but Liu et al.
(1995) chose a formula of lick block without molasses, as it is expensive
and in short supply in some regions.
Table 7.1
Some formulas of multinutrient lick blocks used in China.
Mine- Oil-
Mola- Ce- Li- Wheat Maize Bone Grass
Animal Urea Salt Clay ral seed Ref.
sses ment me bran meal meal meal
mix meal
Dairy cattle
Cow 16 8 26 – 10 11.5 23.8 – 5 – – – [1]
Heifer 12 10 26 – 10 15 22 – 5 – – – [1]
Calf 0 15 22.8 – 10 15 22.2 – 10 – 5 – [1]
Beef cattle 10 38 1 10 – – 1 40 – – – – [2]
Sheep 13 26 10 – – 5 16 30 – – – – [3]
Sheep 13 26 10 4 – 0 17 30 – – – – [3]
Sheep 13 26 10 8 – 0 13 30 – – – – [3]
Sheep 11.8 19.5 13.6 – – 13.6 20.9 14.6 6 – – [4]
Goats 10 35 5 5 10 5 2 25 – – – – [5]
Goats 10 35 5 – 10 5 2 33 – – – – [5]
Goats 10 38 5 10 – 5 2 30 – – – – [5]
Goats 10 35 5 – – 10 2 36 – – – – [5]
Yak 10 10 9 – – 30 – 4 10 20 5 2 [6]
Yak 20 10 10 – – 30 – 4 3 20 3 – [7]
SOURCES: [1] Chen et al., 1993a; [2] Liu et al., 1995 [3] Zhang et al., 2000; [4] Zhang et al.,
1998b; [5] Guan et al., 1998; [6] Zhang, 1998a; [7] Long et al., 1998.
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 91

Nutritional composition of blocks

The nutritional characteristics of multinutrient lick blocks are indicated
in Tables 7.2 and 7.3. Most of the multinutrient lick blocks have a high
crude protein (CP) value due to the effect of the inclusion of urea. Some
workers (Zou et al., 1996; Dong et al., 2002) included oilseed meals in the
blocks. Most of the lick blocks contain Ca, P and Mg, and micro-minerals
such as Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn, Co, I and Se, but the mineral contents differ
greatly between the blocks manufactured by different workers (Table 7.3),
depending mainly on the target animals.
Table 7.2
Nutritional characteristics of multinutrient lick blocks.
ME NE
DM CP Lysine Methionine
Animals (MJ/ kg (MJ/ kg Reference
(%) (%DM) (%DM) (%DM)
DM) DM)
Dairy cattle
Cows 95.8 40.0 – – – 3.51 [1]
Heifers 95.1 31.1 – – – – [1]
Calf 96.1 20.0 – – – – [1]
Dairy cattle – 43.0 – – – – [1]
Beef cattle – 35.6 – – – 2.09 [2]
Yellow cattle – 40.1 – – – – [3]
Yellow cattle – 40.6 – – – – [3]
Buffalo 87.0 34.2 – – – – [4]
Buffalo 38.7 0.23 0.15 – – [5]
Buffalo 87.0 33.4 – – 8.2 – [6]
Sheep – 29.9 – – 6.22 – [7]
Sheep – 41.54 – – 1.47 – [8]
Sheep 93.0 18.75 – – – – [9]
Goat 87.0 33.4 – – – – [10]
Yak – 43.0 – – – – [11]
NOTES: DM = dry matter; CP = crude protein; ME = metabolizable energy; NE = net energy.
SOURCES: [1] Chen et al., 1993a; [2] Xu, Zhao and Liu, 1993; [3] Zou et al., 1998; [4] Guan
et al., 2001a; [5] Zou et al., 1996; [6] Yu et al., 1998; [7] Zhang et al., 1998b; [8] Guan et al.,
2001b; [9] Xue et al., 1995; [10] Guan et al., 2001c; [11] Dong et al., 2002.

Table 7.3
Mineral contents of multinutrient lick blocks.
Ca P mg Fe Cu Mn Zn I Co Se
Animal (mg (mg (mg (mg (mg (mg (mg Ref.
(%) (%) (%)
/ kg) / kg) / kg) / kg) / kg) / kg) / kg)
Dairy cattle
[1]
2.3 5.0 – 1 193 933 3 140 5 412 113 17 57
Cows
[1]
1.1 3.3 – 1 198 651 2 825 1 814 – 5 26
Heifers
[1]
4.3 0.4 – 1 124 140 804 1 002 – 5 42
Calf
Dairy cattle 5 2 0.2 – – – – – – – [2]
Beef cattle 4.22 0.54 2 160 110 150 110 60 12 1 [3]
Yellow cattle – – – 5 200 44 235 106 0.8 8.8 0.31 [4]
Yellow cattle – – – 5 200 49.7 218 120 0.5 8.9 0.48 [4]
Cattle and [5]
>0.9 >0.5 – 1 300 140 450 520 10 5 3
goat
Buffalo and [6]
9.54 0.17 0.55 5 500 170 450 300 0.22 0.53 0.46
goat
Goat 6.8 3.0 4.2 2 400 – 1 400 1 500 20 14 6 [7]
SOURCES: [1] Chen et al., 1993a; [2] Chen et al., 2001a; [3] Xu, Zhao and Liu, 1993; [4] Zou et
al., 1998; [5] Liu et al., 1995; [6] Guan et al., 2001b; [7] Zhang et al., 1998a.
92 Feed blocks – experiences in China

Manufacture of blocks
Depending on the technical process, preparation of multinutrient blocks
developed in China can be classified into two categories: a pressure
process, using special equipment (hot process), or a moulding process
(cold process), in which the ingredients are automatically bound with each
other in mould.
Pressure process
Several specialized equipment sets have been developed to process blocks
under pressure (Chang, 1997; Xia et al., 1994a, 1994b; Li and Li, 1997; Zhang
et al., 2000). Xia et al. (1994a) designed a novel and simple type of molasses
block press system. Zhang et al. (2000) developed appropriate equipment
for manual processing of lick blocks for cattle and sheep, and observed that
there was little influence of pressure intensity (9.7–24.1 kg/cm2) on density
and intake of the blocks by sheep. Liu et al. (1995) utilized machinery
designed for producing ceramic tiles to manufacture urea-mineral lick
blocks with a breaking strength of 40 kg/cm². They were easily transported
and offered to the animals. Even when they were offered to the animals in
situations of high humidity over a long period of time, there were no losses
from mould growth or from hydration of the blocks.
Table 7.4 shows the characteristics of two presses used for the formation
of blocks, designed by Chen et al. (1993a). The blocks were based on a
molasses and urea mix. This mixture was heated and the salt added,
followed by the addition of the rest of the ingredients, previously mixed
together. The complete mixture was then pressed and the resulting blocks
were wrapped immediately. Blocks made using both presses had good
hardness, the breaking strength being 44 kg/cm2. The block was oblate
(diameter 25.6 cm and thickness 8 cm) and weighed about 7.5 kg.
With these equipment sets, shaped multinutrient lick blocks can be
easily produced, while the process does not need much space or labour. The
blocks could be rectangular, oblate or cylindroid in shape, and production
capacity ranged from 50 to 200 kg/h (Chen et al., 1993a; Zhang et al., 2000,
Xia et al., 1994a). The blocks produced were compact, not deliquescent, and
hard enough to control their intake. They did not become mouldy nor did
they lose shape when exposed to rain or sunshine.

Table 7.4
Characteristics of presses used for making blocks.
Dimensions Weight Working pressure Production
Press type Power source
(cm) (kg) (kg/cm2) capacity (kg/h)
9YK-50 Hydraulic jack 60 x 70 x 240 52 50
Manual (50 tonne) 100
9YK-150 Hydraulic 75 x 40 x 640 176 150
Electrical pump (0.75Kw) 200
SOURCE: Chen et al., 1993a.
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 93

The moulding process

Many workers have used a simple moulding process to manufacture lick
blocks (Ma et al., 1992; Yang, Jiang and Wen, 1996; Chen et al., 2001b). In
this process, ingredients are mixed in a manner similar to the hot (pressure)
process and then transferred to moulds, using moulds with a wood or
metal frame. The blocks produced with this process have advantages
compared with hot process blocks, and the cold process is usually fairly
simply and requires neither sophisticated equipment nor much energy.
The blocks made by Chen et al. (2001b) were rectangular, 15 cm × 5 cm,
and weighed about 1 kg each. The blocks produced with a pour process by
Ma et al. (1992) had the following physical characteristics:
• When water was poured onto the surface of the blocks, blocks would
keep their shapes after sun-drying.
• Blocks would hold their shape in water for 1–2 hours, but completely
disintegrate after 4–5 hours.
• The shape of the blocks did not change with finger or foot pressure.
The blocks produced by Yang, Jiang and Wen (1996) were square or a
compressed cylindroid, with a round hole in the centre (1.5 cm in diameter)
to allow the blocks to be hung on a fence. The breaking strength was
56.9 kg/cm2. The hardness was increased when formaldehyde-treated urea
was used in the block instead of urea.

Effects on animal performance

Beef cattle
Some outcomes of multinutrient lick block supplementation on bodyweight
change in beef cattle are shown in Table 7.5. Use of the blocks improved the
productive performance of beef cattle. Zhang et al. (1993) observed that daily
weight gain was 15.6 percent higher and consumption of roughage and
concentrate per kg of gain were 16.9 and 13.3 percent lower, respectively,
when hybrid beef cattle were supplemented with multinutrient lick blocks
containing non-protein nitrogenous (NPN) compounds. Supplementation
with multinutrient lick blocks, with or without urea and salt, could
decrease body weight loss in yellow cattle receiving rice straw ad lib as the
sole diet (Yi et al., 2000). In another trial (Ma et al., 1995), beef cattle with
access to NPN-containing lick blocks had daily weight gain 0.353 kg higher
than those with no blocks (1.478 vs 1.125 kg/day).
In a growth trial with heifers (n = 42), animals having access to lick
blocks had a daily gain of 0.835 kg/day, which was 0.112 kg/day (P < 0.05)
higher than the control group (Chen et al., 1993a). Animals supplemented
with lick blocks would reach 380 kg body weight (weight at first service)
65 days earlier, giving an earlier first calving. Other advantages observed
during the on-farm animal feeding trials were better skin coat, better
body condition and lower mortality. The urea-mineral lick blocks without
molasses were also palatable to both cattle and goats (Liu et al., 1995).
94 Feed blocks – experiences in China

Local yellow cattle grazing and with access to the blocks performed better
than those on the control diet (370 vs 203 g/day weight gain). The animals
offered blocks had better body condition and looked healthier than animals
on unsupplemented diets.
Sheep and goats
Xu, Tian and Wang (1994) observed increased feed intake and improved
daily gain (23 percent) in sheep having access to lick blocks, compared
with controls (Table 7.6). The supplemented sheep produced wool of high
quality with higher contents of S, Fe and Zn. Similar results were observed
by Jia et al. (1995) and Yang, Jiang and Wen (1996). When hybrid goats
had access to urea-molasses blocks, average block intake was 80 g/day
(Guan et al., 2001b). During the last three months of the experiment, daily
weight gains were 67 g and 43 g for goats with and without access to the
blocks, respectively. Effects of multinutrient lick blocks on performance of
growing goats were investigated by Zhang et al. (1999), where goats with
access to lick blocks had a liveweight gain 38.3 percent higher than those
without the blocks.
Table 7.5
Effect of multinutrient block supplementation on performance of beef cattle
Treatment
1 2 3 4
(1)
Hybrid yellow cattle
Intake (kg/day, as fed)
Concentrate mixture 1.5 1.5
Brewer’s grains 19.7 18.2
Carrots 1.1 1.1
Maize silage 3.7 3.6
Multinutrient block 0 0.19
Liveweight gain (g/day) 896 1 036
Huangpo yellow cattle (2)
Intake (g/day)
Rice straw ad lib ad lib ad lib ad lib
Block B 0 120 0 0
Block IB 0 – 46.5 46.5
Urea + salt 0 – 0 suitable
Body weight change (g/day) -311 -88 -140 -176
Qingchuan bull cattle (3)
Intake (kg/day, as fed)
Concentrate mixture (4) 4.5 4.5
Microbe-treated rice straw 4.0 4.0
Multinutrient block 0 20
Liveweight gain (g/day) 930 982
Angus calves (5)
Number of calves (head) 10 bulls 10 bulls 10 heifers 10 heifers
Initial weight (average; kg) 111.4 116.1 94.0 105.5
Intake (kg/day, as fed) 2 2 2 2
Liveweight gain (g/day) 542 794 373 591
NOTES: (1) Data from Zhang et al., 1993. N = 12 in each group, ca 330 kg body weight.
(2) Data from Yi et al., 2000. N = 10 in each group, ca 175 kg body weight. Block IB
is equivalent to block B but without urea and salt. Animals in treatment group 4 were
supplemented with urea and salt to the same level as in group 2. (3) Data from Liu et al.,
2001. N = 11 in each group, ca 290 kg body weight. (4) Ingredients: maize, 26%; wheat,
30%; millet, 20%; sesame cake, 20%; lime, 2%; and salt, 2%. (5) Data from Zheng et al.,
2001. All calves suckled for 1 hour in the morning and evening, and each animal was offered
1 kg of hay and 1 kg of concentrate mixture per day.
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 95

When the multinutrient lick blocks were provided as a supplement

to grazing goats and sheep, the effect on productive performance was
significant (Table 7.6), with much higher weight gain in the block-
supplemented animals than in the control group without blocks. Liu et
al. (1995) reported their results with two groups of goats, which grazed
together on hill pasture during the day and were offered rice straw ad lib
in stalls at night. One group had free access to the urea-mineral lick blocks
along with rice straw at night. Goats with access to the blocks performed
better than those in the control group. Liveweight gains were significantly
higher in animals with blocks compared with those without blocks (95 vs
73 g/day).
Buffaloes
Effects of providing blocks to buffaloes have been observed by some
workers (Lu et al., 1995; Zou et al., 1996, Guan et al., 2001a). When buffalo
heifers (n = 12) fed on rice straw diets were supplemented with urea-
molasses lick blocks, daily weight gain was 650 g, versus 620 g for control
animals (Lu et al., 1995). Feed cost and concentrate consumption per
kg of gain were 9.8 percent and 33.3 percent lower, respectively, for the
supplemented buffaloes. Animals were not poisoned, even when block
intake exceeded 1 000 g/day, indicating that the blocks were safe for
animals. Zou et al. (1996) chose a block formula for growing buffaloes with
molasses, urea, grain by-products, minerals and vitamin premix. Intake of
the blocks increased during the of the experimental period, and was 172.4,
330.2 and 374.1 g/day at 30, 60 and 80 days after start of the experiment,
respectively. Compared with control animals with no blocks, the daily
weight gain of buffaloes with access to the blocks was 22.6 percent (395.4
vs 484.6 g/day) higher. In animals supplemented with blocks, the feed
conversion ratio was 22.5 percent less and concentrate consumption was
22.8 percent less per kg of gain.
96 Feed blocks – experiences in China

Table 7.6
Effect of multinutrient block supplementation on performance of goats and sheep
Treatment
1 2 3 4
Zaanen castrated goats (1)
Intake (g/day, as fed)
Concentrate mixture 200 200
Fresh grass 3300 3400
Liveweight gain (g/day) 24 34
Fine wool sheep (2)
Intake (g/day)
Dry matter 1200 1200 1200
Block I (N:S = 6.1:1)(3) 0 23.8 0
Block II (N:S = 9.2:1) 0 0 27.8
Liveweight gain (g/day) 71.7 83.3 80.0
Wool production (g/day) 4.0 4.3 4.4
Goats (4)
Intake (g/day)
Sugar cane tops/elephant grass ad lib ad lib
Ground maize 50 50
Block 0 80
Liveweight gain (g/day) 43 67
Sheep (5)
Intake of supplement (g/day) 300 300
Liveweight gain (g/day) 116 143
Castrated goats (6)
Intake of blocks (g/day) 0 20 40 60
Liveweight gain (g/day) 75 110 179 73
Black goats (7)
Intake (g/day)
Blocks ad lib ad lib ad lib
Ground maize 0 0 100
Liveweight gain (g/day) 58 73 90
Black goats (8)
Liveweight gain (g/day) 60 87 83
Dressing rate (%) 43.4 47.8 47.9
Lean meat percentage (%) 64.4 72.6 67.7
Tibetan sheep (9)
Intake of block (g/day) 0 152
Liveweight gain (g/day) 111 192
(1) Data from Xu, Tian and Wang, 1994. n = 10 in each group, ca 13 kg body weight.
Concentrate comprised: maize, 53%; wheat bran, 32%; rapeseed meal, 10%;
soybean meal, 4%; common salt, 0.5%; and CaCO3, 0.5%. Group 2 received UMMB
supplementation.
(2) Data from Jia et al., 1995. n = 5 in each group, ca 31–33 kg body weight. The diet
consisted of hay, maize silage, ground maize and groundnut cake.
(3) N:S = Nitrogen to Sulphur ratio.
(4) Data from Guan et al., 2001b. n = 15 in each group, ca 15 kg body weight. Animals
were fed in-house without supplements.
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 97

(5) Data from Xu, Tian and Wang, 1994. n = 20 in each group, ca 20 kg body weight.
Animals were grazed without supplements.
(6) Data from Lu and Gao, 2001. ca 24–25 kg body weight. Animals were grazed without
supplements. Supplement ingredients were: maize, 60.4%; wheat bran, 25.0%; rapeseed
meal, 10%; and soybean meal, 4.6%. UMMB was included in treatment 2.
(7) Data from Chen et al., 2001b. n = 9 in each group, ca 16 kg body weight. Animals were
grazed with supplements.
(8) Data from Zhang et al., 1998a. n = 10 in each group, ca 15 kg body weight. Animals
were grazed without supplements. The goats in group 1 formed the control; the animals in
groups 2 and 3 were supplemented with multinutrient block with Clenbuterol and Monensin,
respectively.
(9) Data from Yu, Chen and Feng, 1998. n = 8 in each group, ca 32 kg body weight.
Animals were grazed without supplements.

Dairy cows
Among the limited work on multinutrient lick blocks with dairy cattle,
Chen et al. (1993a) observed that cows (n = 15) having access to blocks
had an average milk yield of 20.7 kg/day, which was 1.3 kg (6.7 percent)
higher (P < 0.01) than the average of the control group (n = 15). Additional
advantages from use of the blocks included an increased conception
rate (12.2 percent), decreased morbidity (22.5 percent), improved body
condition and increased income (Chen et al., 1992). In another trial by Wang
et al. (1995), dairy cows (n = 10) supplemented with multinutrient blocks
produced 1.1–1.5 kg (5.3–5.9 percent) more milk than those without blocks
(n = 10), and less metabolic disorders were observed in the supplemented
animals. Xu, Zhao and Liu (1993) investigated the performance of Holstein
dairy cows (n = 22) in the middle stage of lactation, and found that when
urea-containing lick blocks were provided, the cows produced 20.5 kg/
day of milk, which was 4.1 kg (25 percent) higher than the average of the
control group. It was estimated that cows with access to blocks gave an
increased income of RMB¥ 736 per head per year.
Several workers offered their dairy cows lumpish concentrate
supplements rather than lick blocks, because the intake of the “block” was
high, from 580 g/day (Chen et al., 2001a) to 2000 g/day (Zhang, Li and
Liu, 1996).
Yaks
Effects of giving UMMBs on productive performance of yak have been
observed by Long and colleagues in Gansu Province (Dong et al., 2002;
Long et al., 1998, 2002; Zhang, 1998). Dong et al. (2002) studied the effect
of the blocks on liveweight change in yak calves, and productive and
reproductive performance of yak cows in the feed-deficient cold season
on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Each calf in the supplemented group was
offered daily 250 g of block and each cow had a 0.5 kg block daily, together
with grazing on natural grassland from January to May 1998. Liveweight
losses of 1-year calves, 2-year calves and yak cows were reduced by 1.2,
98 Feed blocks – experiences in China

8.3 and 7.9 kg in the experimental period after block supplementation

(P < 0.01, Table 7.7). One-year-old calves gained liveweight mostly in
the first supplementation month, and two-year-old calves and yak cows
gained liveweight in the first and last supplementation months. Long et
al. (2002) reported similar results, and that there were significant effects
of UMMB supplement preventing yaks from losing more body weight in
inadequate forage seasons (Figures 7.1 and 7.2). In particular, the effect of
UMMB on performance in terms of less body weight loss seemed better
in April than in February and March, which was clearly reflected in
positive monthly liveweight gains for one-year-old calves in April. Again,
UMMB contributed much to minimizing cow body weight losses (P <
0.01) from both under-feeding and calves suckling during the hard period
(Figure 7.2). Daily milk yield of yak cows increased by 0.21 kg/day when
the lactating animals were supplemented with block (P <0.01, Table 7.8),
although there was no significant effect of block supplementation on hair
and downy hair production of yak cows (P>0.01). Block supplementation
also significantly improved yak cowreproductive performance (P<0.01,
Table 7.8), with increments of 8.8 and 30.9 percent in pregnancy rate and
newborn weight, respectively. Economically, the benefits with two-year
calves and yak cows were reasonable – the output:input ratio reached 1.8: 1
and 1.4: 1 respectively – but block supplementation for one-year-old calves
was far from economic.
Zhang (1998) conducted trials on cold-season supplementary feeding of
urea molasses multinutrient blocks in Gansu province: in Tianzhu county
with 90 white yak cows and in Luqu county with 60 black cows. The blocks,
which contained 10 percent urea and 10 percent molasses, were offered at a
daily intake of 500 g per cow for five months, from December to April. The
results were 80.3 and 46.8 percent less liveweight in the white and black
yaks, respectively. It also lead to 20 and 13.6 percent more milk yield, 17.4
and 20 percent higher pregnancy rate and output:input ratios of 1.35:1 and
2.11:1, respectively in the two yak groups. These authors concluded that
supplementary feeding with the blocks was an effective way to mitigate
liveweight loss and to improve the productive performance of yaks during
the cold season in the pastoral counties.
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 99

Table 7.7
Effect of UMMB on liveweight change of yak calves and cows
Control Treatment Standard
(no (with error
supplement) supplement) of the mean
One-year-old yak calves n = 10 n = 20
Initial weight (kg) 61.4 61.1 0.2
Final weight (kg) 60.2 61.6 0.4
Gain (kg) -1.2 a -0.03 b 0.05
Two-year-old yak calves n = 10 n = 20
Initial weight (kg) 95.4 95.9 1.3
Final weight (kg) 85.7 94.5 2.1
Gain (kg) -9.7 a -1.4 b 0.61
Yak cows n = 20 n = 20
Initial weight (kg) 162.9 158.9 2.2
Final weight (kg) 154.7 158.5 1.4
Gain (kg) -8.2 a -0.4 b 0.081
NOTES: a,b Mean values in the same row with different letters are significantly different
(P<0.01).
SOURCE: Dong et al., 2002

Table 7.8
Effect of supplementary blocks on performance of yak cows
Control Treatment Standard Increment
(without (with error of (%)
supplement) supplement) the mean
Milk yield (kg/day) 1.3 a 1.5 b 0.04 16.4
Cheese production (kg/day) 0.03 a 0.04 b 0.001 18.8
Butter production (kg/day) 0.05 a 0.06 b 0.002 15.4
Hair production (kg) 0.77 0.81 0.09 7.8
Downy hair production (kg) 0.41 0.46 0.02 12.2
Pregnancy rate (%) 63.7 a 72.5 b 0.014 8.8
Caving rate (%) 86.3 90.2 0.015 3.9
Survival rate of calves (%) 90.2 96.4 0.023 6.5
Birth weight of newborn (kg) 13.6 a 17.8 b 0.011 30.9
NOTES: a,b Mean values in the same row with different letters are significantly different (P
<0.01).
SOURCE: Dong et al., 2002
100 Feed blocks – experiences in China

Figure 7.1
Monthly gain in body weight of one-year-old calves with (n = 20) or without (n = 20)
UMMB supplementation (from Long, et al. 2003)

Figure 7.2
Monthly gain in body weight of cows with (n = 20) or without (n = 20) UMMB
supplementation (from Long et al., 2003.)
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 101

Effects on digestion and metabolism

Much of work on blocks in China has been concerned with effects on animal
productive performance. In addition, some workers have investigated the
effects of block use on rumen fermentation (Zhang et al., 1997; Xue et al.
1995) and digestion and utilization of nutrients of the diets (Wu and Liu,
1996; Li et al., 1999). Blood physiological and biochemical parameters have
been compared between animals with and without blocks supplementation
(Zhang et al., 1998a).
Rumen fermentation
Zhang et al (1997) studied the effect of supplementary urea blocks on NH3-
N concentration and pH value in the rumen of wethers. The pH did not
alter, while rumen NH3-N (P <0.01) concentration significantly increased
and approached or exceeded 13 mg/100 ml rumen fluid, the optimal
level of NH3-N for rumen microbial activity suggested by Hume, Moir
and Somers (1970). Improvement in the rumen ecosystem is beneficial
to rumen microbial activity, and hence rumenal digestion. Xue et al.
(1995) observed that when the animals were supplied with an additional
urea block of 50 g per head per day, the microbial protein yield was
increased (11.87 vs 10.18 g/day) and synthetic efficiency (26.4 vs 23.0 g/ kg
fermentable organic matter) was improved, compared with the control.
When rice straw, maize stover and sugar cane bagasse were incubated in
the rumen of buffaloes supplemented with urea-molasses block, the 48-
hour degradation of feedstuff nutrients was significantly higher than in
the rumens of animals without block supplementation (Table 7.9, Guan et
al., 2001c).
Table 7.9
Degradation (48 hours) of rice straw, maize stover and sugar cane bagasse in the
rumen of buffaloes.
Neutral detergent
Dry matter Crude protein
fibre
Blocks without with without with without with
Rice straw 68.7 a 62.3 b 69.7 67.5 62.7 a 56.4 b
Maize stover 85.8 a 78.6 b 86.5 85.7 82.1 a 75.6 b
Sugar cane
55.3 a 50.2 b 63.8 61.4 47.9 a 43.6 b
bagasse
NOTES: a,b Figures for same parameter with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).
SOURCE: Guan et al., 2001c.
102 Feed blocks – experiences in China

Digestion and utilization of the diets

Many investigators have observed that supplementation with blocks can
improve digestion and utilization of nutrients from diets. Wu and Liu
(1996) studied the effects of giving a urea mineral lick block on the kinetics
of ruminal fibre digestion, nutrient digestibility and nitrogen utilization of
rice straw, ammonium bicarbonate (AB)-treated straw and hay prepared
from wild forage. The results are summarized in Table 7.10. With block
supplementation, the digestibility of dry matter and organic matter of rice
straw were increased by 13.1 and 12.7 percent (P < 0.05) and approached
that of the AB-treated straw, indicating that the effect of the blocks on
digestibility of rice straw may be similar to that of AB treatment. The
digestibility of the treated straw was improved slightly when animals had
access to blocks. Nitrogen retention was highest in lambs on AB-treated
straw alone, followed by hay with blocks, and was lowest in animals on
rice straw with blocks. However, both the amount of nitrogen retention
and proportion relative to intake were increased by block supplementation
in lambs fed on hay. The proportion of nitrogen retained to that digested
decreased with block supplementation in lambs on both untreated and
treated straw. Access to blocks did not significantly influence the rumen
degradation of either dry matter or crude protein in any of the three diets.
From the results, it is inferred that while the block is effective in increasing
nutrient digestibility of low quality roughages through improved ruminal
fibre digestion, a simultaneous supply of nitrogen and energy to rumen
microbes should be considered to improve the utilization efficiency of
nitrogen when the basal diet is ammoniated straw.
In experiments with goats, Li et al (1999) observed similar results.
The effect of the blocks on digestibility of rice straw was similar to that
of treatment with ammonia, and further improvement in digestibility of
ammoniated straw was obtained by supplementation with the blocks.
Retention and net utilization efficiency of nitrogen were improved more in
the animals fed untreated rice straw than in those fed ammoniated straw. It
might be due to the oversupply of nitrogen when ammoniated straw diets
are supplemented with urea blocks.
Blood parameters
Numbers of red and white blood cells, concentrations of alkaline
phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase and serum levels of total protein,
albumin, globulin and haemoglobin were significantly higher in goats
supplemented with multinutrient blocks than in goats without blocks
(Table 7.11, Zhang et al., 1998b). Compared with the controls, contents of all
minerals except copper were higher in serum of goats supplemented with
multinutrient blocks.
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 103

Table 7.10
Effects of use of a urea-mineral block on the intake and digestibility of diets offered
to lambs
Rice straw Significance
Hay
Not treated AB treated
Blocks (without/
without with without with without with R B R×B
with)
Intake (g DM/day) 576 534 683 591 735 705 * NS NS
Apparent
digestibility (%)
48.9 55.3 54.4 57.1 49.1 55.0 * ** NS
Dry matter
39.5 45.7 60.1 61.0 35.2 48.8 ** * NS
N × 6.25
62.6 66.8 65.6 68.5 66.2 69.4 * * NS
NDF
Nitrogen intake (g) 8.1 8.1 13.2 12.3 12.5 12.5 ** NS NS
N in faeces (% of 60.5 54.3 40.9 39.0 64.8 51.2 ** * NS
intake)
N in urine (% of 19.8 27.2 17.4 25.2 9.6 12.8 * * NS
intake)
N retention (% of 19.7 18.5 41.7 35.8 25.6 36.0 * * NS
intake)
N retained / N 50.0 40.5 70.5 58.7 72.7 73.8 ** * NS
digested
DM degradability 42.9 44.0 52.0 52.2 43.7 46.3 * NS NS
(%)
EED (%) 26.6 28.2 33.6 36.1 23.1 28.9 ** * NS
NOTES: R = roughage effect; B = block effect; R × B = interaction effect between roughage
and block; * = significant at P<0.05; ** = significant at P<0.01; NS = not significant; AB =
treated with ammonium bicarbonate; EED = effective extent of ruminal fibre digestion.
SOURCE: Wu and Liu, 1996.
104 Feed blocks – experiences in China

Table 7.11
Blood cell counts, enzyme activity, protein and mineral contents in serum of goats
with or without multinutrient block supplementation for 30 and 60 days (Zhang et
al., 1998a)
30 days 60 days
Block Block Block
Control Control Block 1
1 2 2
Red blood cells (×104/
15.9 b 18.5 a 18.3 a 15.6 b 18.4 a 18.2 a
mm3)
White blood cells (×104/
6.9 b 7.4 a 7.6 a 6.9 b 7.5 a 7.7 a
mm3)
Haemoglobin (g/litre) 72.4 b 97.3 a 94.6 a 72.6 b 96.8 a 95.1 a
Alkaline phosphatase 17.5
16.6 17.1 16.7 16.6 b 17.8 a ab
(Units/litre)
Glutamate dehydrogenase
15.7 48.2 45.6 48.8 51.4 49.3
(Units/litre)
Lactate dehydrogenase
5.1 5.4 5.2 5.2 b 5.8 a 5.7 a
(Units/litre)
Serum protein level
Total protein (g/l) 72.0 b 87.2 a 85.8 a 73.6 b 88.8 a 85.7 a
57.1
Albumin (g/l) 48.7 b 57.1 a 56.8 a 48.8 b 59.0 a ab

Globin (g/l) 23.3 b 30.1 a 29.0 a 24.8 b 29.8 a 28.6 a

Non-protein nitrogen
0.28 b 0.41 a 0.42 a 0.29 b 0.37 a 0.37 a
(mg/ml)
Serum mineral content
114.7
Ca (μg/ml) 94.8 b 113.6 a 114.5 a 93.6 b 114.2 a a

P (μg/ml) 75.4 b 91.7 a 93.6 a 75.0 b 93.2 ab 95.3 a

Mg (μg/ml) 23.3 b 34.7 a 35.5 a 23.1 b 34.0 a 34.3 a
Na (mg/ml) 2.6 b 3.0 a 3.0 a 2.7 b 3.0 a 3.0 a
Cl (mg/ml) 4.5 b 5.1 a 5.1 a 4.5 b 5.0 a 5.0 a
Fe (μg/l) 28.4 b 34.9 a 36.1 a 29.1 b 36.1 a 37.4 a
Cu (μg/l) 7.0 8.3 8.7 7.2 8.1 8.4
Zn (μg/l) 6.2 b 8.7 a 9.2 a 6.6 b 9.0 a 9.7 a
NOTES: a,b values within same period with different superscripts differ significantly (P <0.05).
The composition of the blocks were the same (see Zhang et al., 1988a; Table 7.1) except
that the Block 1 formula contained clenbuterol and Block 2 contained monensin.

Conclusion
Since the introduction of multinutrient blocks into China in the early 1990s,
much research work has been carried out nationwide. New techniques
have been developed to manufacture the multinutrient blocks in China,
and the blocks have been demonstrated to be an efficient way to improve
performance of beef cattle, goats and sheep, dairy cows and yaks, no
matter whether the animals were indoor fed or grazing. The beneficial
effects on performance of animals are attributed to improved rumen
fermentation, digestion and utilization of diets. However, much effort is
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 105

still needed to extend the multinutrient block concept and product more
widely in China.

Addendum
Note added by one of the Editors (HPSM) after his visit to the sites of IAEA TC Project
CPR/5/014 in the People’s Republic of China in August 2003. The principal investigator
of this project is one of the authors (ZD) of this chapter and the chapter covers in part the
activities of this Technical Cooperation Project.
The objective of the project is to enhance livestock production in
northwest China, using appropriate feed supplementation strategies,
particularly the use of UMMBs. This project became operational in mid-
2000 with the setting up of UMMB production facilities at 10 sites in
Gansu province. At the time of reporting, approximately 2 000 farmers
were feeding the blocks to over 17 000 animals at these sites, and farmers
earned an additional income of RMB¥ 3 million in 2002 as a result of this
technology, with a rate of return (ROR) of 160 percent on the investment
made by IAEA and counterpart institutions (for every dollar invested
by IAEA and the national government in extending the technology, the
investment generated an additional US$ 1.60 for each US$ 1 invested, after
paying the investment). The cost–benefit ratio varied from 1:1.5 to 1:2.9 for
beef cattle; 1:5.4 to 1:6.5 for dairy cattle; 1:3.5 for yak cows; 1:4 for sheep for
meat; and 1:3 for sheep for wool. Increased income of RMB¥ 1.2 to 3.5 per
animal per day for dairy and beef cattle, 44 percent increased reproductive
efficiency in yak, and a 40 percentage unit increase in twinning rate (from
20 to 60 percent) in Alpine short-tail sheep have also been recorded. Income
of farmers using the blocks has increased by approximately 10 percent. The
ROR of 160 percent in the second year of the project clearly shows that the
project has had a very good impact. The rate and density of adoption of the
technology was higher in those areas where the extension workers could
easily contact farmers and where education levels of farmers were higher.
Methodology for preparation of blocks using wheat flour in place
of molasses has been standardized. The basic formula (dry ingredients;
weight basis) of the wheat-flour-based blocks is: wheat flour, 5%; urea, 10%;
sesame cake, 12.5%; rape seed cake, 12.5%; wheat bran, 10%; maize flour,
10%; bone meal, 3%; common salt, 7%; and bentonite, 30%. It is similar
to the molasses-based blocks, except that 1 kg of molasses is replaced
with 0.5 kg of wheat flour. These blocks are being used by farmers, with
considerable beneficial effects. This technology for wheat-flour-based
blocks will have spillover effects for other countries short of molasses or
where molasses is not produced.
106 Feed blocks – experiences in China

References
Chang, Y.H. 1997. Manufacturing of lick blocks for ruminants using spiral
squeezing pressure method. Feed Outlook, 9(4): 38–39.
Chen, Y., Hu, D.X., Xiao, Q.Y. & Zhang, J.J. 2001a. Productive performance of dairy
cattle supplemented with high-protein urea lick blocks. China Feed, 15: 6–7.
Chen, Y., Hu, D.X., Li, Q., Yan, X.R., Zhang, J.J. & Chen, H. 2001b. Effect of
feeding brick of compound urea nutrient on the performance of meat type goats.
Journal of Mountain Agriculture and Biology, 20(1): 25–27.
Chen, Y.Z., Wen, H., Ma, X., Li, Y. & Gao, Z. 1992. Multinutrient lick blocks and
its prospect for dairy cattle. Feed Research, 12: 14–15.
Chen, Y.Z., Wen, H., Ma, X., Li, Y., Gao, Z. & Peterson, M.A. 1993a. Multinutrient
lick blocks for dairy cattle in Gansu Province, China. Livestock Research and Rural
Development, 5(3): 60–63.
Chen, Y.Z., Wen, H., Ma, X., Li, Y. & Gao, Z. 1993b. Manufacture and utilization
of multinutrient lick blocks for dairy cattle. Gansu Journal of Animal Husbandry and
Veterinary Medicine, 23(1): 4–6.
Dong, S.K., Long, R.J., Kang, M.Y., Pu, X.P. & Guo, Y.J. 2003. Effect of urea
multinutritional molasses blocks supplementation on liveweight change of yak
calves and productive and reproductive performances of yak cows. Canadian
Journal of Animal Science, 83(1): 141-145.
Gao, W. & Meng, Q.X. 2002. Development and application of multinutrient lick
blocks for ruminants in China during the last decade. China Herbivores, 22(1): 32–
35.
Guan, Y.Y., Huang, F., Fang, W.Y., Wen, Q.Y. & Lu, Y. 1998. Experience in
utilization of molasses-urea lick blocks for ruminant animals. Guangxi Journal of
Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 14(4): 19–20.
Guan, Y.Y., Huang, F., Fang, W.Y., Wen, Q.Y., Li, Z.Q. &Wang, X.M. 2001a. Effect
of molasses-urea block supplementation on growth rate of buffaloes. Guizhou
Journal of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 25(2): 3–4.
Guan, Y.Y., Huang, F., Fang, W.Y., Wen, Q.Y., Lu, Y., Pang, N.B., Pan, B.N. & Li.,
J.C. 2001b. Effect of molasses-urea block supplementation on growth rate of
indoor fed goats. China Herbivores, 21(1): 34–35.
Guan, Y.Y., Wen, Q.Y., Huang, F. & Fang, W.Y. 2001c. Effect of molasses-urea
block supplementation on rumen degradation of nutrients of straws in buffalos.
Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 33(3): 15–16.
Guo, T.S. & Zhang, Z.S. 1991. Preparation and use of molasses-urea lick blocks.
Feed Research, 2: 18–20.
Guo, T.S. & Yang, Z.H. 1997. New developments in livestock systems based on
crop residues in China. In: Livestock Feed Resources within Integrated Farming
Systems, the 2nd FAO Electronic Conference on Tropical Feeds, 9 September
1996–28 February 1997. See: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/
AGRICULT/AGA/AGAP/FRG/conf96.htm/guo.htm
Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 107

Hume, I.D., Moir, R.J. & Somers, M. 1970. Synthesis of microbial protein in
the rumen. 1. Influence of the level of nitrogen intake. Australian Journal of
Agricultural Research, 21: 283–296.
Jia, Z.H., Li, D.F., Yu, H.M., Hou, W.J., Zhao, L.Z., Liu, Z.K. & Dai, G. 1995. Effect
of supplementation with different formulations of urea-molasses lick blocks on
production performance in sheep. China Feed, 22: 9–10.
Lai, E.L., Ning, Z.H., Wang, X.R., Wang, R.M., Qiu, D.T., Lou, Y.W., Zeng, Z.Y.
& He, S.L. 1997. Use of urea-complex lick blocks in hybrid beef cattle. Jiangxi
Journal of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 3: 48–52.
Li, D.F., Qiao, S.Y., Zhang, X.M. & Zhu, X.P. 1995. Current situation in manufacture
and utilization of urea-molasses lick blocks in China. China Feed, 17: 2–4.
Li, X.R & Li, W.F. 1997. Manufacture of equipment set for processing of
multinutrient blocks. Machinery for Agriculture and Food Processing, 4: 14–26.
Li, L.L., Zhang, B., Liu, C.Y., Lin, D.M. & Chen L.X. 1999. Studies on feeding
value and functionary mechanism of multinutrient block in goats. 3. Effects
on digestibility of diet composition and nitrogen balance. Journal of Hunan
Agricultural University, 25(4): 327–330.
Liu, H., Hu, M., Zhang, B. & Feng, J.B. 2001. Effect of Red Rockies mineral bricks
on finishing beef performance. Journal of Yellow Cattle Science, 27(6): 23–25.
Liu, J.X., Wu, Y.M., Dai, X.M., Jun Yao, Zhou, Y.Y. & Chen, Y.J. 1995. The effects
of urea-mineral lick blocks on the liveweight gain of local yellow cattle and goats
in grazing conditions. Livestock Research and Rural Development, 7(2): 9–13.
Liu, X.Y., Li, S.J., Wu, B.J. & Guo, X.L. 1995. Components of urea-molasses lick
blocks – a review. Sichuan Journal of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine,
11: 13–14.
Long, R.J., Zhang, D.G., Wang, X., Dong, S.Q., Hu, Z.Z. & C.Y. Ma. 1998. Mid-term
progress report of the IAEA Regional Technical Cooperation Project RAS/5/030
on “Feed supplementation and animal production strategies”, China.
Long, R.J., Dong, S.K., Wei, X.H. & Pu, X.P. 2003. Effect of supplementary strategy
on body weight change of Yaks in cold season. Livestock Production Science
(submitted).
Lu, A.D. & Gao. L. 2001. Investigation on the effect of feeding of mineral lick block
on growth rate of the finishing goats. Yunnan Journal of Animal Husbandry and
Veterinary Medicine, 1: 32
Lu, Y., Yang, B.Y., Guan, Y.Y., Huang, F., Fang, W.Y. & Tang, X.F. 1995. Preliminary
study on urea-molasses blocks for growing buffaloes. Guangxi Journal of Animal
Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 11(4): 24–25.
Ma, W.H., Han, S.J., Wang, D.C., Wang, L.H., Liu, C. & Chen, L.X. 1995. Effect of
NPN-containing lick blocks on fattening performance of beef cattle. China Feed,
15: 23.
Ma, Y.Z., Ti, X.Y., Zhen, R.L. & Xu, J.Y. 1992. Manufacturing and evaluation of
molasses-urea lick block. Tianjin Agricultural Sciences, 1: 25–26.
108 Feed blocks – experiences in China

Tang, Z., Liu, F.J., Guo, H.B. & Yuan, Y.J. 1998. Effect of NPN-containing nutrient
lick blocks on performance of heifers. Feed Industry, 19(8): 24.
Wang, X.L., Lin, Z.Y., Sun, X. & Song, Y.H. 1995. Effect of multinutrient lick
blocks on performance of dairy cows. Liaoning Journal of Animal Husbandry and
Veterinary Medicine, 5: 10–11.
Wu, Y.M. & Liu, J.X. 1996. The kinetics of fibre digestion, nutrient digestibility and
nitrogen utilization of low quality roughages as influenced by supplementation
with urea-mineral blocks. Livestock Research and Rural Development, 7(3): 55–65.
Xia, J.P., Han, L.J., Xie, M. & Lu, T.K. 1994a. A novel and simple type of molasses
block press system. Journal of the Beijing Agricultural Engineering University,
14(2): 60–63.
Xia, J.P., Xie, M., Han, L.J., Lu, T.K. & Fan, X.M. 1994b. Manufacturing of
equipment set for production of molasses-urea lick blocks. China Feed, 4: 27–28.
Xu, Q.L., Zhao, Y.B. & Liu, Q. 1993. Trial on milk enhancer – urea molasses lick
block for dairy cattle. Qinghai Journal of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine,
26(6): 1–2.
Xu, Z.C., Tian, Y.J. & Wang, H. 1994. Use of multinutrient lick blocks in goats and
sheep. Sichuan Pasture, 3: 27–29.
Xue, F.G., Li, D.F., Jia, Z.H., Zhang, G.L. & Chen, H. 1995. The effect of complex
urea blocks on synthesis of microbial protein in the rumen of sheep. Foodstuff and
Feed Industry, 10: 36–38.
Yang, Y.F., Jiang, Y. & Wen, J. 1996. Manufacture of multi-mineral lick blocks and
its effect on sheep. Feed Outlook, 8(3): 7–8.
Yi, J.M., Wang, S.G., Shao, H.W., Cao, F.Y. & Huang, B.H. 2000. Effect of
multinutrient lick blocks on decreasing weight loss in feeder beef. Chinese Journal
of Animal Science, 36(3): 40–41.
Yu, Z.X., Chen, Y.G. & Feng, Y.Z. 1998. Effect of supplementary lick block contained
urea and molasses on gain of fattening Tibetan sheep in autumn grazing. Qinghai
Journal of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 28(5): 1–2.
Zhang, B., Li, L.L., Liu, C.Y., Lin, D.M., Chen, G.W. & Huang, C.L. 1999. Effect
of multinutrient lick blocks on performance of growing goats. Animal Ecology,
20(2): 4–8.
Zhang, B, Li, L.L., Chen, L.X., Liu, C.Y., Chen, G.W. & Lin D.M. 1998a. Studies
on feeding value and functionary mechanism of multinutrient block in goats. 2.
Effects on physiological and biochemical parameters in blood. Journal of Hunan
Agricultural University, 24(5): 388–393.
Zhang, B., Li, L.L., Qu, X.Y. & Pu, Z.S. 2000. Effects of supplementary
multinutrient lick blocks on physiological and biochemical parameters in bloods.
China Herbivores, 20(1): 5–8.
Zhang, D.G. 1998. Supplementary feeding of urea molasses multinutrient blocks
and effects on productive performance of Yak cows. Acta Prataculturae Sinica,
7(1): 65–69.
 Urea-Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks 109

Zhang, L., Lu, Y.X., Zhang, W.Y., Guo, T.F. & Yang, B.P. 1997. Ammonia nitrogen
concentration and pH value in rumen liquids of sheep supplemented with urea-
molasses lick blocks. China Sheep Feeding, 4: 19–20.
Zhang, L., Chang, C., Yang, B.P., Zhu, X.S. & Zhou, L.X. 1998b. Effect of urea-
molasses lick blocks supplementation on performance of grazing female sheep
during winter and spring seasons. Journal of Grass and Animal Husbandry,
2: 10–11.
Zhang, L., Zhang, W.Y., Chang, C., Guo, T.F., Yang, B.P. & Zhu X.S. 2000. Study
on technique for processing of urea-molasses lick blocks for sheep. China
Herbivores, 20(1): 10–11.
Zhang, Y.C., Li, F.G. & Liu, K.J. 1996. Effect of feeding of urea-mineral block on
performance of dairy cows. China Dairy, 4: 13–15.
Zhang, Z.W., Zhang, X.M., Li, D.F. & Liu, J.W. 1993. Investigation on
growth performance of beef steers supplemented with multinutrient lick blocks
containing NPN. Feed Industry, 14(8): 34–35.
Zheng, X.B., Zhang, Y., Ni, Y.L., Hadel & Zhang, L. 2001. Effect of supplementary
multinutrient blocks on growth performance of Angus calves. Xinjiang Animal
Husbandry, 1: 15.
Zou, X.Q., Liu, Q.H., Hu, M.S. & Liang, X.W. 1996. Effect of feeding of urea-
mineral block on performance of buffaloes. Journal of Fujian Agricultural
University, 25(3): 350–352.
Zou, X.Q., Liu, Q.H., Hu, M.S. & Liang, X.W. 1998. Effect of feeding of urea-
mineral block on performance of yellow cattle. Journal of Yellow Cattle Science,
24(1): 16–18.

View publication stats